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

Re: Modification of the sensate being

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    (Message #5750) It is the same question I asked the Kierkegaard scholars, most of whom were Christian. They immediately placed the question in the category of
    Message 1 of 69 , Apr 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      (Message #5750) "It is the same question I asked the
      Kierkegaard scholars, most of whom were Christian. They immediately
      placed the question in the category of pluralism, which it fits well,
      and away we went. My question then was essentially this: Is there one
      "salvation" and Christianity is only representative of it, or are
      there as many salvations as there are descriptions of it?

      My question now is directed towards those who adhere to, as it were,
      the tenants of Gnosticism; is it the truth or a representative of the
      truth?"

      Hmmm, Will, I'd be curious how the modern Christians in the group
      described "salvation." Did anyone mention that "heretical" view of
      Gnosis being salvation, Gnosis being the root word in "Gnosticism"?
      Dan mentioned, "There is one salvation." Those influenced by
      historical Gnosticism (a historical phenomenon, vs. "one" religion)
      would define salvation as Gnosis, not only faith, or a human/god
      dying as a sacrifice for some perceived Original Sin, etc. Gnostics
      view ignorance as "sin." Gnosis, as we said, isn't attained by
      informational knowledge alone, by Sunday school teachings or
      inspiring, emotional sermons or good deeds or any dogma promulgated
      by the exoteric church. This is not to say that this path won't lead
      to esoteric understanding down the road. There are undoubtedly those
      truly pneumatic members in various congregations. But, as seen in a
      lot of modern Western Christianity, literalism has overshadowed
      metaphorical interpretation, even to some extent for more liberal
      Christians. Extreme literalism as seen in fundamentalist religions
      can even have the effect of taking a big detour often resulting in a
      dead end for some (in my not-so-humble opinion :-) ). Generally,
      opportunities do not always abound for esoteric paths in modern-day
      Christianity. As I mentioned before, the ancients even had a
      specific system of initiatory mysteries (sacraments) as we can see in
      the Gospel of Philip.

      Gnostics might view the exoteric church as inhabited primarily by
      those hylic/psychic parishioners who often still view God in terms of
      a psychological anthropomorphized extension of man (and, well, often
      literally "male"). Gnosis is not pursued until one makes the shift
      in sense of self. As I quoted from Kierkegaard in my last
      post, "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."
      This same interpretation is seen in Gnostic writings.

      So, the eternal question remains, do we all have the possibility of
      attaining Gnosis in common? Are we, as you say, Will, "all capable
      of doing it"? Are we all capable of recognizing and pursuing this
      divine spark within us, . . . or not? Will some be capable of
      taking the shift in sense of self to psychological levels, while
      others will be able to experience spiritual knowledge? Is it simply
      a matter of choice? (*hands thrown in air*)

      In any case, it is possible that one might not fully attain Gnosis,
      total acquaintance with divine "Truth," in this physical state, but
      effort toward that goal is a process Gnostics generally find
      salvific. Whatever "self-referential language" floats one's boat
      toward salvific Gnosis is cool in my book. :-)

      Cari
    • 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 ~

        http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

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