Re: New Member
- Hi Everyone,
There are some great thoughts on this thread. I wish to add some
Hey Market wrote:And so, we may reject this REALITY, through first we
recognize what we are rejecting.
My thoughts: While it is true, that in Gnostic fashion, we reject
this reality, in recognizing what we are rejecting, we must also
understand the purpose of the reason for us as individuals being here
in the first place.
While we may not desire to be here, we must use the knowledge of who
and what we are (strengths and shortcomings) to complete our tasks.
In other words, we must not allow our dislike or lack of desire for
this world to detract from us completing our purpose for being here
in the first place. Otherwise, we most certainly will return to
finish that lesson.
By seeking Gnosis, we can become enlightened as to exactly what our
individual purpose is.
To those who know the Gnostic writings better than I, I hope you can
post something along these lines of thought.
--- 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
> is made of a parodoxical and chaotic intermixture.
> That is the reality of this world, and it is a REALITY, even if it
> 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
> the only sort of sense that the world makes).
> And so, we may reject this REALITY, through first we recognize what
> we are rejecting.
> As the great Gnsotic Valentinus tells us (through Clement, who
> paraphrases him), gnosis is the knowledge of who we are, from
> we came, INTO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TRHOWN, and to what we shall return.
> Undoubtedly, we have been thrown into quite a messed-up mix, and
> Khul, being bi-racial, you no doubt have you're own experience of
> this sort of chaos and intervixture. But all considerations of skin
> aside, we're all in the thick of the mix--none of us escapes it
> save through gnosis, which is the knowledge that we are more than
> what we seem--we are more than this current reality, and in fact, a
> divine spark within us tell us that who we really are and from
> we came.
> 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
> division. Fortunately, with gnosis, we can return to it now, for it
> is none other than the consciosness of this reality.
> When we experience this consciousness, we might already be said to
> have returned to it.
> --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
> > Reply to Khaldun's message #5731
> > "One of the wickedest places" you've ever been, huh? I can't
> tell if you mean that literally, as one of the "worst" places, or
> the vernacular, as one of the "baddest" places around. No worries,
> though. I lived in Georgia for a few years, and as with most
> I can take those comments either way.
> > First off, I'd like to say that I hope everyone hasn't had the
> problems posting and accessing posts as some of us have had.
> new Groups format may take some getting used to. Anyway, I thought
> I'd take the chance to respond tonight while I could finally get
> through, but as my eyes are shutting on me, forgive me if you find
> this even more incoherent than usual.
> > >>The texts that I've read were not really shocking, but they
> seriously moved me and now I have this conscience about the whole
> > I wonder if the lack of shock-value might stem from the fact that
> you already find yourself with a conscience? I can see where the
> greatest disturbance might be found by one with deep convictions in
> radically different understanding, e.g., an orthodox belief system.
> > >>But it makes sense or else why would Jesus himself advise us to
> renounce the things of this world and to repent??<<
> > Well, it makes sense to me as well, and yet, I wonder what
> you mean by "renouncing" and "repenting." I certainly think that
> teachings meant for us to find the value in "transcending" this
> world, but your comments make me wonder as to what moral judgments
> might have come attached with them.
> > I don't mean to suggest there that Gnostics didn't have moral
> concerns, but I think they had a deeper appreciation that sort of
> mitigated those questions. Unable to put my hands right now on my
> favorite quote regarding this topic, I do like what Elaine Pagels
> to say about moral preconceptions:
> > "The gnostic author of the Gospel of Philip rejects this whole
> of thinking. As this author sees it, no act in itselfand
> specifically neither celibacy nor marriageis necessarily good or
> bad. Instead the moral significance of any act depends upon the
> situation, intentions, and level of consciousness of the
> > Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, pg. 71.
> > IOW, I see a difference between recognizing the illusory nature
> the world and going out of one's way in completely rejecting all
> things worldly.
> > Gerry
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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!