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

Re: New Member

Expand Messages
  • d_lazenby27
    ... all ... Good and bad are opposite ends of the same stick, you know one through it s relation to the other. To be happy is to know sadness at the same time,
    Message 1 of 137 , Apr 8 2:26 AM
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., hey_market <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > And per Philip, the illusory nature of the world is such that the
      > good is never really good, and the bad never really bad, because
      all
      > is made of a parodoxical and chaotic intermixture.

      Good and bad are opposite ends of the same stick, you know one
      through it's relation to the other. To be happy is to know sadness at
      the same time, but we keep beating ourselves with the stick of
      duality and suffer. Good and bad only exist as concepts in our minds,
      they have no objective existence.

      The Great Way is not difficult
      for those who have no preferences.
      When love and hate are both absent
      everything becomes clear and undisguised.
      Make the smallest distinction, however
      and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
      If you wish to see the truth
      then hold no opinions for or against anything.
      To set up what you like against what you dislike
      is the disease of the mind.

      Hsin Hsin Ming, Sengstan


      >
      > That is the reality of this world, and it is a REALITY, even if it
      is
      > an illusory reality, if that makes any sense (well, I suppose if it
      > makes sense, it is a paraodoxical and chaotic sort of sense, which
      is
      > the only sort of sense that the world makes).

      What is real and what is illusory, is a reflection in a mirror real
      or is it an illusory representation of something that is real? Why do
      we need to discriminate? Is a dream real? Of course it is, just
      because it has no physical substance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
      Is a tv picture real or illusion? It's real, a real tv picture.

      Be serene in the oneness of things
      and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.

      Sengstan again


      > As the great Gnsotic Valentinus tells us (through Clement, who
      > paraphrases him), gnosis is the knowledge of who we are, from
      whence
      > we came, INTO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRHOWN, and to what we shall return.

      Who am I, where am I, what am I doing here? Are these not the only
      questions?

      > And the place we came from is the place unto which we will return,
      > and it is a common, transcendent reality--a place without and
      beyond
      > division. Fortunately, with gnosis, we can return to it now, for it
      > is none other than the consciosness of this reality.

      Yes, it is everywhere and everything, it is right here now, it is
      only now that we can find the truth, we don't have to do anything or
      go anywhere, just realise the true nature of things(which may
      paradoxically require us to go to many places and do many things).


      > When we experience this consciousness, we might already be said to
      > have returned to it.

      A brief foray into the world of mind, ego, separation. If we can let
      go of our ideas of being someone, a separate self, then we shall
      return to our true nature in a flash. It never went anywhere, we did,
      wandered off into the maze of the mind and got well and truly lost.

      Just a few thoughts,
      Dave
    • Gerry
      ... Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. ... And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt. There s something
      Message 137 of 137 , Apr 8 9:04 AM


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@...> wrote:

        >
        > [. . .]
        >
        > Gerry and Lady C.,thanks for all of the info and links.…

         

        Thank you, Jana, for noticing them. 

         


        > Gerry, after looking at the National Geographic link, I was

        > reminded of some suggestions I gave you on faded writing. I'm feeling
        > really good about watery sepia ink and sandpaper...and sand
        > horizontally and vertically...with the gray sandpaper...
        >

         

        And ya know, that was the one suggestion you wrote me that I was the most hesitant to attempt.  There's something about the dual-layered papyrus and its almost glossy sheen that made me wonder if such coarse measures would destroy the whole thing, but the more I've thought about it (along with your renewed convictions), the more I believe it would indeed yield a desirable finish.  I imagine the weathered results would be akin to repeatedly wadding up a sheet of paper to the point that it becomes more like a thin piece of cloth rather than a crisp piece of paper.  Only this way, you avoid the wrinkles!

        Gerry

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