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

Modification of the sensate being

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... of ... knowledge ... that ... far ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Greetings, Will and Dave. Yes, informational
    Message 1 of 69 , Apr 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "d_lazenby27" <d_lazenby27@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
      > > Hi, I know not much about Gnosticism, but am learning quickly. I
      > found
      > > the following site with a list of what makes a Gnostic, and one
      > > them, quoted below, caught my attention as being what it was all
      > > about. It says that one must first know the revelatory experience
      > > before there is an awakening. Could someone describe this
      > modification
      > > of sensate being for me?
      > >
      > > http://gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm
      > >
      > > "Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these
      > dreams
      > > by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this
      > is
      > > not information but a modification of the sensate being."
      > >
      > Hi Wilbro,
      > Great question. Here's how I see it,
      > It's a deeper understanding, beyond intellect, of the knowledge
      > you have cognisized, a realisation. A drawing together of knowledge
      > into wisdom that cannot be perceived on it's own. This wisdom is
      > greater, deeper and more profound than the sum of it's parts.
      > The effect of these realisations is to bring about a change in
      > perspective, an expansion of conciousness not knowledge.
      > Realisations are revelatory because they occur unprompted by our
      > conciousness.
      > We can read a thousand books but if we don't realise their deeper
      > meaning then we read in vain.
      > Knowledge alone is useless.
      > Dave

      Greetings, Will and Dave. Yes, informational knowledge alone won't
      bring about "a modification of the sensate being."

      Dave speaks of "a drawing together of knowledge into wisdom" (Logos
      and Sophia). In fact, the sects of the ancient phenomenon of
      Gnosticism used an initiatory process in their seeking of Gnosis. You
      can see this system referred to in _The Gospel of Philip_ for

      Will, I'm taking the liberty of posting one of your quotes from your
      homepage. Considering your interest in Kierkegaard, this following
      passage of his describes a transition, a shift in the sense of self:

      "All human language about the spiritual, yes, even the divine
      language of Holy Scriptures, is essentially transferred or
      metaphorical language. This is quite in order or corresponds to the
      order of things and of existence, since even though man is spirit
      from the moment of birth he first becomes conscious as spirit later,
      and therefore prior to this he has lived for a certain time within
      sensuous-psychic categories. The first portion of life shall not,
      however, be cast aside when the spirit awakens, any more than the
      awakening of spirit announces itself in sensuous or sensuous-psychic
      modes in contrast to the sensuous or sensuous-psychic. The first
      portion is taken over by spirit, and, thus used, thus laid at the
      base, it becomes transferred. Therefore the spiritual man and the
      sensuous-psychic man say the same thing in a sense, and yet there
      remains an infinite difference between what they say, since the
      latter does not suspect the secret of transferred language, even
      though he uses the same words, but not metaphorically. There is a
      world of difference between the two; the one has made a transition or
      has let himself be led over to the other side; whereas the other has
      remained on this side. Yet there is something binding which they have
      in common - they both use the same language. One in whom the spirit
      is awakened does not therefore leave the visible world. Although now
      conscious of himself as spirit, he is still continually in the world
      of the visible and is himself sensuously visible; likewise he also
      remains in the language, except that it is transferred. Transferred
      language is, then, not a brand new language; it is rather the
      language already at hand. Just as spirit is invisible, so also is its
      language a secret, and the secret rests precisely in this that it
      uses the same language as the simple man and the child but uses it as
      transferred. Thereby the spirit denies (but not in a sensuous or
      sensuous-psychic manner) that it is the sensuous or sensuous-psychic.
      The distinction is by no means directly apparent. Therefore we quite
      rightly regard emphasis upon a directly apparent distinction as a
      sign of false spirituality - which is mere sensuousness; whereas the
      presence of spirit is the quiet, whispering secret of transferred
      language - audible to him who has an ear to hear." (W0L, Hong, pp.

    • lady_caritas
      Say, Will, not to confuse you any more, but . . .just for fun, since we both are not adverse to a transferred language of metaphor, I invite you and any other
      Message 69 of 69 , Apr 22, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Say, Will, not to confuse you any more, but . . .just for fun, since
        we both are not adverse to a transferred language of metaphor, I
        invite you and any other members who wish to join in, to read through
        _The Gospel of Thomas_ to see if you find any metaphorical language
        that makes sense to you. (This is not a requirement BTW, just an
        invitation to get a feel for a bit of metaphorical language used in
        the environs around here. LOL)

        For those who do not have a copy of the text, an online version can
        be found here ~


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