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

Re: Thomasine Metaphor

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    So, back to Gospel of Thomas ~ Logion 16: Jesus said, People probably think that it is peace that I have come to impose upon the world. And they do not
    Message 1 of 29 , May 10, 2002
      So, back to Gospel of Thomas ~

      Logion 16: Jesus said, "People probably think that it is peace that
      I have come to impose upon the world. And they do not recognize that
      it is divisions that I have come to impose upon the earth – fire,
      sword, battle. . ."

      Logion 90: Jesus said, "Come (plur.) to me, for my yoke is easy (to
      use) and my lordship is mild, and you find repose for yourselves."


      Hmmm, . . . thoughts anyone?

      Cari
    • hermetic_star
      There are 10 sephera x 4 worlds, x 10 (Each sephera has its own tree). This adds up to 400 sephera. I believe the kingdom of heaven would refer to one of the
      Message 2 of 29 , May 11, 2002
        There are 10 sephera x 4 worlds, x 10 (Each sephera has its own
        tree). This adds up to 400 sephera. I believe the kingdom of heaven
        would refer to one of the higher sephera, probably the one that
        forms the 'Crown' or 'Kether' of the tree of this world. This, of
        coarse is looking at it from a 1400's or later perspective. I
        believe Christ was talking about the kingdom of living spirits.
        People were hearing Christ, he was bringing the (spiritualy) dead
        back to life. If you inherit the physical world, and die tommorow,
        what good does it do? Or if you inherit the physical world, it now
        belongs to you, will you take it from the person who the law
        recognises as the rightful owner? Or are you referring to a mastery
        of and domination of the laws of the physical world?
      • hermetic_star
        The old pagan religion of the Hibernian celts was not written down until Patricks time, are you saying that the druidic and pagane celtic ways onlt date back
        Message 3 of 29 , May 11, 2002
          The old pagan religion of the Hibernian celts was not written down
          until Patricks time, are you saying that the druidic and pagane
          celtic ways onlt date back that far, Karl?
        • hermetic_star
          Of coarse I agree with you both that the kabbalah as we know it is fairly recent, but I think it s a good point to argue anyway. I can be the devils advocate
          Message 4 of 29 , May 11, 2002
            Of coarse I agree with you both that the kabbalah as we know it is
            fairly recent, but I think it's a good point to argue anyway. I can
            be the devils advocate sometimes, right? :p
          • play_nice_now
            I m not sure how this adds to the discussion on Jewish Mysticism but I thought this may help clear the air a bit. Mysticism and mystical experiences have
            Message 5 of 29 , May 13, 2002
              I'm not sure how this adds to the discussion on Jewish
              Mysticism but I thought this may help clear the air a bit.

              Mysticism and mystical experiences have been a part of
              Judaism since the earliest days. The Torah contains many
              stories of mystical experiences, from visitations by angels to
              prophetic dreams and visions. The Talmud considers the
              existence of the soul and when it becomes attached to the body.
              Jewish tradition tells that the souls of all Jews were in existence
              at the time of the Giving of the Torah and were present at the
              time and agreed to the Covenant. There are many stories of
              places similar to Christian heaven and purgatory, of wandering
              souls and reincarnation. The Talmud contains vague hints of a
              mystical school of thought that was taught only to the most
              advanced students and was not committed to writing. There are
              several references in ancient sources to ma'aseh bereishit (the
              work of creation) and ma'aseh merkavah (the work of the chariot
              [of Ezekiel's vision]), the two primary subjects of mystical thought
              at the time.

              In the middle ages, many of these mystical teachings were
              committed to writing in books like the Zohar. Many of these
              writings were asserted to be secret ancient writings or
              compilations of secret ancient writings.

              Like most subjects of Jewish belief, the area of mysticism is
              wide open to personal interpretation. Some traditional Jews take
              mysticism very seriously. Mysticism is an integral part of
              Chasidic Judaism, for example, and passages from kabbalistic
              sources are routinely included in traditional prayer books. Other
              traditional Jews take mysticism with a grain of salt. One
              prominent Orthodox Jew, when introducing a speaker on the
              subject of Jewish mysticism, said basically, "it's nonsense, but
              it's Jewish nonsense, and the study of anything Jewish, even
              nonsense, is worthwhile."

              The mystical school of thought came to be known as Kabbalah,
              from the Hebrew root Qof-Bet-Lamed, meaning "to receive, to
              accept." The word is usually translated as "tradition." In Hebrew,
              the word does not have any of the dark, sinister, evil
              connotations that it has developed in English. For example, the
              English word "cabal" (a secret group of conspirators) is derived
              from the Hebrew word Kabbalah, but neither the Hebrew word
              nor the mystical doctrines have any evil implications to Jews.

              For what it was worth,
              play
            • play_nice_now
              Seemingly contradictory eh? But then again, so are many Logions in this Gospel. Probably because these Logions, or sayings, are quotes taken out of context.
              Message 6 of 29 , May 13, 2002
                Seemingly contradictory eh? But then again, so are many
                Logions in this Gospel. Probably because these Logions, or
                sayings, are quotes taken out of context.

                How should a reader approach understanding the Gospel of
                Thomas? What is it's purpose? What is it's message? What is it
                trying to do exactly?

                peace,
                play



                --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > So, back to Gospel of Thomas ~
                >
                > Logion 16: Jesus said, "People probably think that it is peace
                that
                > I have come to impose upon the world. And they do not
                recognize that
                > it is divisions that I have come to impose upon the earth – fire,
                > sword, battle. . ."
                >
                > Logion 90: Jesus said, "Come (plur.) to me, for my yoke is
                easy (to
                > use) and my lordship is mild, and you find repose for
                yourselves."
                >
                >
                > Hmmm, . . . thoughts anyone?
                >
                > Cari
              • wilbro99
                ... As I read through the GoT, #3 caught my attention. The meshing of living in poverty and being the poverty tells me that knowing oneself is a change in
                Message 7 of 29 , May 14, 2002
                  --- In gnosticism2@y..., "play_nice_now" <searay@b...> wrote:
                  > Seemingly contradictory eh? But then again, so are many
                  > Logions in this Gospel. Probably because these Logions, or
                  > sayings, are quotes taken out of context.
                  >
                  > How should a reader approach understanding the Gospel of
                  > Thomas? What is it's purpose? What is it's message? What is it
                  > trying to do exactly?
                  >
                  > peace,
                  > play
                  >

                  As I read through the GoT, #3 caught my attention. The meshing of
                  living in poverty and being the poverty tells me that knowing oneself
                  is a change in being, or, as I would have it, a shift in one's sense
                  of self. As to what poverty is, I was immediately reminded of a two
                  quotes (see below) I had archived. The poverty is the hunger of desire
                  that drives the discontented to seek contentment (shades of the Buddha
                  and the four noble truths), in a word, the seeker. There is a movement
                  out of "poverty." As to how one then describes that which remains and
                  that which no longer is is still a matter of description. I would have
                  it that that which no longer is is the error and to no longer be in
                  error is to be in the truth. The truth does not need to be defined,
                  although it is well within the realm of poesy. As to defining what the
                  error is, if that description reifies itself by ascribing the error to
                  the act of a God, thus bringing into being a God, I would say that
                  the error has reestablished itself in spades.

                  #3.. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will
                  understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do
                  not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the
                  poverty."

                  "For this is the nature of one that has desires, that he is ever
                  discontented and dissatisfied, like one that suffers hunger; for what
                  has the hunger which all the creatures suffer to do with the fullness
                  which is caused by the Spirit of God? Wherefore this fullness that is
                  uncreated cannot enter the soul, if there be not first cast out that
                  other created hunger which belongs to the desire of the soul; for, as
                  we have said two contraries cannot dwell in one person, the which
                  contraries in this case are hunger and fullness." (St. John of the
                  Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Chapter VI 3)

                  "What did I find? Not my 'I', for that is what I was in that way to
                  find (I imagined, if I may put it so, my soul shut up in a box with a
                  spring lock in front, which the outside surroundings would release by
                  pressing the spring). - So the first thing to be resolved was this
                  search for and discovery of the Kingdom of Heaven. A person would no
                  more want to decide the externals first and the fundamentals
                  afterwards than a heavenly body about to form itself would decide
                  first of all about its surface, about which bodies it should turn its
                  light side to and to which its dark side, without first letting the
                  harmony of centrifugal and centripetal forces bring it into being and
                  letting the rest develop by itself. One must first learn to know
                  oneself before knowing anything else, (_gnothi seauton_). Only when
                  the person has inwardly understood and then sees the course forward
                  from the path he is to take, does his life acquire repose and meaning;
                  only then is he free of that irksome, fateful traveling companion -
                  that life's irony which appears in the sphere of knowledge and bids
                  true knowing begin with a not-knowing (Socrates), just as God created
                  the world from nothing." (Kierkegaard, Papers & Journals, Hannay, pp.
                  34-35) (Papers, 1 August 35 I A 75)

                  >
                  > --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  > > So, back to Gospel of Thomas ~
                  > >
                  > > Logion 16: Jesus said, "People probably think that it is peace
                  > that
                  > > I have come to impose upon the world. And they do not
                  > recognize that
                  > > it is divisions that I have come to impose upon the earth – fire,
                  > > sword, battle. . ."
                  > >
                  > > Logion 90: Jesus said, "Come (plur.) to me, for my yoke is
                  > easy (to
                  > > use) and my lordship is mild, and you find repose for
                  > yourselves."
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hmmm, . . . thoughts anyone?
                  > >
                  > > Cari
                • lady_caritas
                  Hello, Play and Will. :-) Play, it s true that the Gospel of Thomas sayings are not presented in a neat biographical setting such as found in the biblical
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 15, 2002
                    Hello, Play and Will. :-)

                    Play, it's true that the Gospel of Thomas sayings are not presented
                    in a neat biographical setting such as found in the biblical
                    gospels.

                    From the introduction to the GTh in Bentley Layton's _The Gnostic
                    Scriptures_ (p. 376) ~
                    "Historical framework is irrelevant to the message of GTh, for the
                    salvation that it proclaims is not the future reign of god on earth,
                    to be ushered in by a messiah, but rather the recognition of one's
                    true nature and acquaintance with oneself, leading to immediate
                    repose and rendering `death' (i.e. the realm of human affairs)
                    trivial, `The kingdom is inside of you …. When you become acquainted
                    with yourselves … you will understand that it is you who are children
                    of the living father.' Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection are
                    not discussed in GTh; his role here is purely that of a teacher of
                    wisdom."

                    Will addresses this theme in his post #5872.

                    Reading through the passages you offered, Will, I was struck by terms
                    that are used quite frequently also in Gnostic scripture, such
                    as, "fullness" ("Pleroma") and "repose." You likewise
                    mention "error." ~ "I would have it that that which no longer is is
                    the error and to no longer be in error is to be in the truth."

                    If you haven't already, Will, I would recommend reading the
                    Valentinian "Gospel of Truth" which goes directly to this issue. Here
                    is an online version (although I personally prefer Bentley Layton's
                    translation in _The Gnostic Scriptures_):
                    http://gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html

                    Speaking of terminology, what do you mean by "God" when you say, "As
                    to defining what the error is, if that description reifies itself by
                    ascribing the error to the act of a God, thus bringing into being a
                    God, I would say that the error has reestablished itself in spades."
                    Do you see any difference between your usage of the term, "God," and
                    the understanding of "God" or "Father" used in the quotes you
                    furnished?

                    Cari
                  • wilbro99
                    cari, shark-lady, second installment. I have read the Gospel of Truth and, although I am no scholar in these matters, it seems to me that the error being
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 15, 2002
                      cari, shark-lady, second installment.

                      I have read the Gospel of Truth and, although I am no scholar in these
                      matters, it seems to me that the "error" being spoken to is much along
                      the line of the Socratic notion of "Recollection," where the truth is
                      covered by ignorance and what one finds is the "divine spark," as it
                      were. If I am mixing things up, I plead ignorance. I can take what I
                      mean by "error" and see how it could be described in those terms
                      because it takes a revelation to reveal it. That revelation is given
                      by its absence. There is repose where before was no repose and it is
                      obvious that what no longer is was the factor of no-repose; i.e., the
                      factor of disturbance.

                      There is a movement from no-repose to repose and in that movement,
                      something that was no longer is and is revealed as the cause of
                      no-repose. Then, when repose comes to an end, where there is a
                      recognition of no-repose, the cause may be seen and negated, returning
                      one to repose. The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself
                      as oneself, where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of
                      self in terms of time, creates that temporal identity.

                      "Coming to know the Father" is the movement to repose through the
                      negation of that which causes no-repose. Because that which comes to
                      an end is the temporal, that which remains is the presential, and is
                      full of presence. If the Father is the Eternal, that reading of the
                      shift would naturally follow. The knowing that comes into being is of
                      another order, and the term self-knowing easily applies. Yes, it has
                      the sense of unity about it, especially coming from a self divided
                      into a past, a present, and a future. As I move down through the GoT,
                      it is easy for me to read what I know into it. I see it as only
                      another metaphor for that movement from error. And that brings me to
                      God.

                      St. John and his Via Negative speaks to God as being the fullness and
                      as having nothing to do with the error. If I remember correctly, in
                      the Gnostic system, that error was created by a God. That creation is
                      what I was referring to. In the system, even if the error is negated,
                      that God still remains as the creator of it. Kierkegaard speaks
                      directly about self-knowing coming before anything else. He speaks
                      elsewhere about the necessity for one coming into presence with
                      oneself before the presence of God can be. Again, the error is man's
                      doing, and is the grasping of oneself as temporal.


                      --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > Hello, Play and Will. :-)
                      >
                      > Play, it's true that the Gospel of Thomas sayings are not presented
                      > in a neat biographical setting such as found in the biblical
                      > gospels.
                      >
                      > From the introduction to the GTh in Bentley Layton's _The Gnostic
                      > Scriptures_ (p. 376) ~
                      > "Historical framework is irrelevant to the message of GTh, for the
                      > salvation that it proclaims is not the future reign of god on earth,
                      > to be ushered in by a messiah, but rather the recognition of one's
                      > true nature and acquaintance with oneself, leading to immediate
                      > repose and rendering `death' (i.e. the realm of human affairs)
                      > trivial, `The kingdom is inside of you …. When you become acquainted
                      > with yourselves … you will understand that it is you who are
                      children
                      > of the living father.' Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection are
                      > not discussed in GTh; his role here is purely that of a teacher of
                      > wisdom."
                      >
                      > Will addresses this theme in his post #5872.
                      >
                      > Reading through the passages you offered, Will, I was struck by
                      terms
                      > that are used quite frequently also in Gnostic scripture, such
                      > as, "fullness" ("Pleroma") and "repose." You likewise
                      > mention "error." ~ "I would have it that that which no longer is is
                      > the error and to no longer be in error is to be in the truth."
                      >
                      > If you haven't already, Will, I would recommend reading the
                      > Valentinian "Gospel of Truth" which goes directly to this issue.
                      Here
                      > is an online version (although I personally prefer Bentley Layton's
                      > translation in _The Gnostic Scriptures_):
                      > http://gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html
                      >
                      > Speaking of terminology, what do you mean by "God" when you say, "As
                      > to defining what the error is, if that description reifies itself by
                      > ascribing the error to the act of a God, thus bringing into being a
                      > God, I would say that the error has reestablished itself in spades."
                      > Do you see any difference between your usage of the term, "God," and
                      > the understanding of "God" or "Father" used in the quotes you
                      > furnished?
                      >
                      > Cari
                    • lady_caritas
                      Willy-Whale, no need to plead ignorance at all. I m certainly no Gnostic scholar either (lol), but I agree with much of what you have written. Besides, there
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                        Willy-Whale, no need to plead ignorance at all. I'm certainly no
                        Gnostic scholar either (lol), but I agree with much of what you have
                        written. Besides, there is commonly much variance of opinion in the
                        scholarly community.

                        Some of your comments tie in nicely to the Gospel of Thomas:

                        "There is a movement from no-repose to repose and in that movement,
                        something that was no longer is and is revealed as the cause of no-
                        repose. Then, when repose comes to an end, where there is a
                        recognition of no-repose, the cause may be seen and negated,
                        returning one to repose." (Will)
                        and from GTh, Logion 50 ~ "… If they ask you, `What is the sign of
                        your father within you?' say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"

                        "Kierkegaard speaks directly about self-knowing coming before
                        anything else. He speaks elsewhere about the necessity for one coming
                        into presence with oneself before the presence of God can be." (Will)
                        and from GTh, Logion 70 ~ "Jesus said, `If you (plur.) produce what
                        is in you, what you have will save you. If you do not have what is
                        in you, what you do not have [will] kill you.'"

                        "The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself as oneself,
                        where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of self in
                        terms of time, creates that temporal identity." (Will)

                        One might view error to include thinking of oneself in terms of time,
                        and also by extension observing oneself in only physical and/or
                        psychological terms. Important is that spiritual awakening is not
                        dependent on some "future" event or resurrection.

                        Logion 113 ~ His disciples said to him, "When is the kingdom going to
                        come?" (Jesus said), "It is not by being waited for that it is going
                        to come. They are not going to say, `Here it is' or `There it is.'
                        Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and
                        people do not see it."

                        Logion 51 ~ . . . He said to them, "That (repose) which you (plur.)
                        are waiting for has come, but for your part you do not recognize it."

                        Seeking and finding, a re-cognition or "recollection," getting in
                        touch with the divine spark within that you mention, Will, is indeed
                        necessary to transcend our physical existence and all its
                        concomitant "disturbance." The "revelation," which awakens us
                        from "ignorance," allows us to continue our experiential paths in
                        this earthly existence in a practical sense with a new sense of
                        self.

                        Now, regarding your comments on "God" ~

                        "St. John and his Via Negative speaks to God as being the fullness
                        and as having nothing to do with the error." (Will)

                        I recall that Terje offered an excellent discussion of "Via Negativa"
                        in his Message #5810. And for discussion of "error" within a
                        Valentinian perspective, you might find the following piece
                        interesting: http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/error.htm This also
                        addresses your following comment: "If I remember correctly, in the
                        Gnostic system, that error was created by a God." Well, there is not
                        just one "Gnostic system," and there are certainly various opinions
                        on whether the mythological "demiurge" was directly responsible
                        for "error," especially in connection with the meaning of "error" in
                        the Gospel of Truth. For discussion of "demiurge" (NOT to be
                        confused with the "True God") I recommend:
                        http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/demiurge.htm

                        Nonetheless, your comment, "Again, the error is man's doing, and is
                        the grasping of oneself as temporal" might just elicit some hand
                        waving from Gnostics. To be sure, other religions might view error
                        as man's fault (for instance, a concept of "original sin" such as
                        seen in orthodox Christianity), but Gnostics as seen through their
                        mythology generally view humans as a product of the error that
                        already has occurred. *Sustaining* the error might be man's doing,
                        however, and humans ARE individually responsible for seeking and
                        finding the divine spark within themselves and awakening from
                        the "sin" of ignorance. Even upon "awakening" humans still live in a
                        physical existence that is flawed, but they approach life with a new
                        sense of self and the True God vs. a "creator god."

                        Logion 28 ~ Jesus said, "I stood at rest in the midst of the world.
                        And unto them I was shown forth incarnate; I found them all
                        intoxicated. And I found none of them thirsty. And my soul was
                        pained for the children of humankind, for they are blind in their
                        hearts and cannot see. For, empty did they enter the world, and
                        again empty they seek to leave the world. But now they are
                        intoxicated. When they shake off their wine then they will have a
                        change of heart."

                        Well, I certainly have gone on here long enough, MobyWilly. LOL I
                        think I'll grab a cup of coffee to "shake off" my morning stupor.

                        Cari
                      • play_nice_now
                        Interesting conversation Will and my lady Caritas. So then, the kingdom is already here and now. Always has been. Always will be. Why do you guys think that
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                          Interesting conversation Will and my lady Caritas.

                          So then, the kingdom is already "here" and now. Always has been.
                          Always will be. Why do you guys think that no one sees it or
                          experiences it in that way? From the gnostic point of view, is
                          knowing this just a matter of making the decision to know it or
                          remember it again? If so, what stops us from making that decision?
                          What are we afraid of?

                          By the way this idea of the kingdom of God being placed here and now,
                          within us and outside us, is taught in many of the Earth's religions
                          and philosophies. Please excuse the length of this post but you all
                          may find this kind of interesting in the interest of gaining
                          knowledge. Here are some quotes:

                          These passages describe the human being as a microcosm of the
                          universe, having the essences of all things in him- or herself. As
                          the microcosm, human beings have the foundation to know, use, and
                          enjoy all things. Of all creatures, humans have the widest scope of
                          thought and action, encompassing all things, knowing and appreciating
                          all things, guiding and prospering all things, and transcending all
                          things.

                          All that the Holy One created in the world He created in man.


                          1. Judaism. Talmud, Abot de Rabbi Nathan 31

                          We shall show them Our signs in the horizons and in themselves, till
                          it is clear to them that it is the truth.


                          2. Islam. Qur'an 41.53

                          One who knows the inner self knows the external world as well. One
                          who knows the external world knows the inner self as well.


                          3. Jainism. Acarangasutra 1.147

                          The whole of existence arises in me,
                          In me arises the threefold world,
                          By me pervaded is this all,
                          Of naught else does this world consist.


                          4. Buddhism. Hevajra Tantra 8.41

                          The illimitable Void of the universe is capable of holding myriads of
                          things of various shape and form, such as the sun, the moon, stars,
                          mountains, rivers, worlds, springs, rivulets, bushes, woods, good
                          men, bad men, dharmas pertaining to goodness or badness, deva planes,
                          hells, great oceans, and all the mountains of the Mahameru. Space
                          takes in all these, and so does the voidness of our nature. We say
                          that the Essence of Mind is great because it embraces all things,
                          since all things are within our nature.


                          5. Buddhism. Sutra of Hui Neng 2




                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------
                          Abot de Rabbi Nathan 31: Cf. Berakot 10a, p. 211. Hevajra Tantra
                          8.41: Cf. Samyutta Nikaya i.62, p. 679.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------


                          Man is the product of the attributes of Heaven and Earth, by the
                          interaction of the dual forces of nature, the union of the animal and
                          intelligent souls, and the finest subtle matter of the five elements.

                          Heaven exercises the control of the strong and light force, and hangs
                          out the sun and stars. Earth exercises the control of the dark and
                          weaker force, and gives vent to it in the hills and streams. The five
                          elements are distributed through the four seasons, and it is by their
                          harmonious action that the moon is produced, which therefore keeps
                          waxing for fifteen days and waning for fifteen. The five elements in
                          their movements alternately displace and exhaust one another. Each
                          one of them, in the revolving course of the twelve months of the four
                          seasons, comes to be in its turn the fundamental one for the time.

                          The five notes of harmony, with their six upper musical accords, and
                          the twelve pitch-tubes, come each, in their revolutions among
                          themselves, to be the first note of the scale.

                          The five flavors, with the six condiments, and the twelve articles of
                          diet, come each one, in their revolutions in the course of the year,
                          to give its character to the food.

                          The five colors, with the six elegant figures, which they form on the
                          two robes, come each one, in their revolutions among themselves, to
                          give the character of the dress that is worn.

                          Therefore Man is the heart and mind of Heaven and Earth, and the
                          visible embodiment of the five elements. He lives in the enjoyment of
                          all flavors, the discriminating of all notes of harmony, and the
                          enrobing of all colors.


                          6. Confucianism. Book of Ritual 7.3.1-7

                          In the beginning the Self alone was here--no other thing that blinks
                          the eye at all. He thought, "What if I were to emanate worlds?"

                          He emanated these worlds, water, rays of light, death, the waters.
                          Water is up there beyond the sky; the sky supports it. The rays of
                          light are the atmosphere; death the earth; what is underneath, the
                          waters.

                          He thought again, "Here now are these worlds. What if I were to
                          emanate guardians?" He raised a Man (Purusha) up from the water and
                          gave him a form.

                          He brooded over him; when he had finished brooding over him, a mouth
                          broke open on him the likeness of an egg. From the mouth came speech
                          and from speech Fire.

                          Nostrils broke open, from the nostrils came breath, from breath the
                          Wind.

                          Eyes broke open, from the eyes came sight, from sight the Sun.

                          Ears broke open, from the ears came hearing, from hearing the Points
                          of the Compass.

                          Skin broke out, from skin grew hairs, from the hairs plants and trees.

                          A heart broke out, from the heart came mind, from the mind the Moon.

                          A navel broke open, from the navel came the out-breath, from the out-
                          breath Death.

                          A phallus broke forth, from the phallus came semen, from semen
                          Water....

                          Those deities [the macrocosmic beings], Fire and the rest, after they
                          had been sent forth, fell into the great ocean. Then he [the Self]
                          besieged him [the Purusha] with hunger and thirst. The deities then
                          spoke to him, "Allow us a place in which we may rest and take food."

                          He led a cow towards them. They said, "This is not enough." He led a
                          horse towards them. They said, "This is not enough." He led man
                          towards them. Then they said, "Well done, indeed." Therefore man is
                          well done. He said to them, "Enter the man, each according to his
                          place."

                          Then fire, having become speech, entered the mouth; the wind, having
                          become breath, entered the nostrils; the sun, having become sight,
                          entered the eyes; the regions, having become hearing, entered the
                          ears; the plants and trees, having become hairs, entered the skin;
                          the moon, having become mind, entered the heart; death, having become
                          out-breathing, entered the navel; water, having become semen, entered
                          the phallus....

                          The Self considered, "How could these guardians exist without me?"

                          Again he thought, "By what way shall I enter them?

                          "If, without me, speech is uttered, breath is drawn, eye sees, ear
                          hears, skin feels, mind thinks, sex organs procreate, then what am
                          I?"

                          He thought, "Let me enter the guardians." Whereupon, opening the
                          center of their skulls, he entered. The door by which he entered is
                          called the door of bliss.


                          7. Hinduism. Aitareya Upanishad 1.1-3.12




                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------
                          Book of Ritual 7.3.1-7: Cf. Gleanings from the Writings of
                          Baha'u'llah 27, p. 311.

                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------


                          Each man is a microcosm of the universe. Your body is made of all the
                          elements of the world. Nature supplied all the ingredients that make
                          your body, which means that the universe made you by donating itself.
                          If nature demanded that you refund everything that nature loaned you,
                          would there be anything left of you? You can feel that the universe
                          gave you birth and made you, so nature is your first parent. Do you
                          feel good that you are a microcosm of the universe? All the universal
                          formulas can be found in you. You could accurately say that you are a
                          small walking universe that can move, whereas the cosmic universe is
                          stationary. Because you can move and act, you can govern the
                          universe. The universe would want you to exercise dominion over it,
                          so your first duty would be to love nature. Then, wherever you are,
                          you can love the creation and appreciate it.


                          8. Unification Church. Sun Myung Moon, 9-30-79




                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          ----------
                          Aitareya Upanishad 1.1-3.12: Vv. 1.1-4, 2.1-4, 3.11-12. The Purusha
                          formed at the beginning of creation is the macrocosmic Person; his
                          parts are then invested in man, the microcosm. Likewise, Hindu
                          temples are built on the pattern of the human body: see Vacana 820,
                          p. 211. For other accounts of creation out of the macrocosmic Person,
                          cf. Rig Veda 10.90.6-16, pp. 868f. Mundaka Upanishad 1.1.7-9, p. 132;
                          Okanagan Creation, p. 298. Sun Myung Moon, 9-30-79: Cf. Gleanings
                          from the Writings of Baha'u'llah 27, p. 311.


                          peace,
                          play
                        • wilbro99
                          Lady C, we have much work to do here. Here is what I see happening. I see some of the Gnostic scheme of things speaking to what I know, but using metaphorical
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                            Lady C, we have much work to do here. Here is what I see happening. I
                            see some of the Gnostic scheme of things speaking to what I know, but
                            using metaphorical terms. When I cast what I know in my own terms, you
                            translate it back into those metaphorical terms. At that point, we may
                            be speaking about the same thing. We had a long discussion to that
                            point, both by Email and in that other group, that puts us fairly well
                            in the same ballpark; there is a necessary transition that brings
                            another way of knowing into being. A metaphorical system may be seen
                            as pointing to such a transition, but that fact can only be known
                            after the transition has come into being. That same metaphorical
                            system can also be interpreted in a before-transition way. The
                            difference between the before and after understanding gleaned from the
                            system is incommensurable. This is key to my scheme of things; the
                            before view and the after view of the same metaphorical system are
                            separated by a necessary transition in the one who holds the view, and
                            since those views are incommensurable one with the other, the
                            transition represents a discontinuity in one's sense of self. Bear
                            with me here and I will try to connect all of this into a whole.

                            From: http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/error.htm

                            "The identity of lack and error is supported in many passages where
                            the two seem to be used interchangeably. Error arises because the
                            Aeons did not know the Father. They "accepted error" because of the
                            Father's "depth" i.e. his unknowability (22:20f). Similarly , "lack
                            came into being because the Father was not known" (24:28-32). Both
                            "error" and "lack" are described as coming into being because the
                            Aeons did not know the Father. Surely this is no coincidence…"

                            I am equating the Error with the before-transition sense of self and
                            the absence of the error to the after-transition sense of self. When
                            they say the Error is equivalent to "not knowing the Father," they are
                            saying that "not knowing the Father" is the same as being in Error. I
                            take that as a metaphor. Not being in Error does have a sense of
                            fullness about it that being in Error does not. I can see how the
                            sensation of the transition could be seen as "being at one with." I
                            say there is no Father to be known, no kingdom of God, other than as a
                            way of describing the sensational aspect of it. Of course, I am taking
                            your notion of "spiritual' out of it except as a metaphorical term for
                            the utterly new sense of self. I will accept the term as separating
                            the before and after, but only as signifying the separation. And here,
                            in the next paragraph from the site, the before and after is separated
                            by ascribing the before to the world of matter and the after to the
                            other world, the spiritual.

                            "According to the "creation tale," the material realm is in some
                            manner is intimately associated with error. According to the text, it
                            is "her (i.e. error's) matter" (17:16f). Elsewhere the text describes
                            how "the realm of appearance which belongs to the lack is the world"
                            (24:22-24). Thus the material realm is said to belong to both error
                            and lack further supporting the hypothesis that the two are
                            interchangeable. There is further confirmation of this from elsewhere
                            in the text. According to one passage, "the lack belonging to the
                            realm of matter did not result from the infinity of the
                            Father...rather the Father's Depth is immense and it is not with him
                            that the thought of error resides"(35:8-18). Note that the "lack
                            belonging to the realm of matter" is described as the "thought of
                            error." Again note the intimate association of matter, error and lack.
                            In a notable parallel, the teacher Theodotus speaks of the realm of
                            matter as "the thought of the deficiency" (Excepts of Theodotus 22:7).
                            As is normal in Valentinian thought, the Gospel of Truth describes an
                            intimate association between matter and lack. What is is noteworthy
                            that the same intimate relationship is said to exist between matter
                            and error."

                            All of that to get to this point. I said, "The error, as I see it, is
                            a temporal taking of oneself as oneself, where one thinks self in
                            terms of time, and in thinking of self in terms of time, creates that
                            temporal identity."

                            You replied, "One might view error to include thinking of oneself in
                            terms of time, and also by extension observing oneself in only
                            physical and/or psychological terms. Important is that spiritual
                            awakening is not dependent on some "future" event or resurrection."

                            Your addition of physical and/or psychological terms to my view of
                            Error, as a necessary addition, changes my view into a view other than
                            mine, one corresponding to the quote above. However, in adding the
                            fact that "spiritual awakening" is not something for the future, you
                            have moved it somewhat back into my view. The reason I raise this as I
                            do is twofold; firstly to make the point and secondly to segue to
                            Play's response and questions of #5876, in response to which I will
                            continue this point.


                            --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > Willy-Whale, no need to plead ignorance at all. I'm certainly no
                            > Gnostic scholar either (lol), but I agree with much of what you have
                            > written. Besides, there is commonly much variance of opinion in the
                            > scholarly community.
                            >
                            > Some of your comments tie in nicely to the Gospel of Thomas:
                            >
                            > "There is a movement from no-repose to repose and in that movement,
                            > something that was no longer is and is revealed as the cause of no-
                            > repose. Then, when repose comes to an end, where there is a
                            > recognition of no-repose, the cause may be seen and negated,
                            > returning one to repose." (Will)
                            > and from GTh, Logion 50 ~ "… If they ask you, `What is the sign of
                            > your father within you?' say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"
                            >
                            > "Kierkegaard speaks directly about self-knowing coming before
                            > anything else. He speaks elsewhere about the necessity for one
                            coming
                            > into presence with oneself before the presence of God can be."
                            (Will)
                            > and from GTh, Logion 70 ~ "Jesus said, `If you (plur.) produce what
                            > is in you, what you have will save you. If you do not have what is
                            > in you, what you do not have [will] kill you.'"
                            >
                            > "The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself as oneself,
                            > where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of self in
                            > terms of time, creates that temporal identity." (Will)
                            >
                            > One might view error to include thinking of oneself in terms of
                            time,
                            > and also by extension observing oneself in only physical and/or
                            > psychological terms. Important is that spiritual awakening is not
                            > dependent on some "future" event or resurrection.
                            >
                            > Logion 113 ~ His disciples said to him, "When is the kingdom going
                            to
                            > come?" (Jesus said), "It is not by being waited for that it is
                            going
                            > to come. They are not going to say, `Here it is' or `There it is.'

                            > Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and
                            > people do not see it."
                            >
                            > Logion 51 ~ . . . He said to them, "That (repose) which you (plur.)
                            > are waiting for has come, but for your part you do not recognize
                            it."
                            >
                            > Seeking and finding, a re-cognition or "recollection," getting in
                            > touch with the divine spark within that you mention, Will, is indeed
                            > necessary to transcend our physical existence and all its
                            > concomitant "disturbance." The "revelation," which awakens us
                            > from "ignorance," allows us to continue our experiential paths in
                            > this earthly existence in a practical sense with a new sense of
                            > self.
                            >
                            > Now, regarding your comments on "God" ~
                            >
                            > "St. John and his Via Negative speaks to God as being the fullness
                            > and as having nothing to do with the error." (Will)
                            >
                            > I recall that Terje offered an excellent discussion of "Via
                            Negativa"
                            > in his Message #5810. And for discussion of "error" within a
                            > Valentinian perspective, you might find the following piece
                            > interesting: http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/error.htm This also
                            > addresses your following comment: "If I remember correctly, in the
                            > Gnostic system, that error was created by a God." Well, there is
                            not
                            > just one "Gnostic system," and there are certainly various opinions
                            > on whether the mythological "demiurge" was directly responsible
                            > for "error," especially in connection with the meaning of "error" in
                            > the Gospel of Truth. For discussion of "demiurge" (NOT to be
                            > confused with the "True God") I recommend:
                            > http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/demiurge.htm
                            >
                            > Nonetheless, your comment, "Again, the error is man's doing, and is
                            > the grasping of oneself as temporal" might just elicit some hand
                            > waving from Gnostics. To be sure, other religions might view error
                            > as man's fault (for instance, a concept of "original sin" such as
                            > seen in orthodox Christianity), but Gnostics as seen through their
                            > mythology generally view humans as a product of the error that
                            > already has occurred. *Sustaining* the error might be man's doing,
                            > however, and humans ARE individually responsible for seeking and
                            > finding the divine spark within themselves and awakening from
                            > the "sin" of ignorance. Even upon "awakening" humans still live in
                            a
                            > physical existence that is flawed, but they approach life with a new
                            > sense of self and the True God vs. a "creator god."
                            >
                            > Logion 28 ~ Jesus said, "I stood at rest in the midst of the world.

                            > And unto them I was shown forth incarnate; I found them all
                            > intoxicated. And I found none of them thirsty. And my soul was
                            > pained for the children of humankind, for they are blind in their
                            > hearts and cannot see. For, empty did they enter the world, and
                            > again empty they seek to leave the world. But now they are
                            > intoxicated. When they shake off their wine then they will have a
                            > change of heart."
                            >
                            > Well, I certainly have gone on here long enough, MobyWilly. LOL I
                            > think I'll grab a cup of coffee to "shake off" my morning stupor.
                            >
                            > Cari
                          • wilbro99
                            ... Play, I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion about my view of this from what Lady C has said. I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think
                            Message 13 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                              --- In gnosticism2@y..., "play_nice_now" <searay@b...> wrote:
                              > Interesting conversation Will and my lady Caritas.
                              >
                              > So then, the kingdom is already "here" and now. Always has been.
                              > Always will be. Why do you guys think that no one sees it or
                              > experiences it in that way? From the gnostic point of view, is
                              > knowing this just a matter of making the decision to know it or
                              > remember it again? If so, what stops us from making that decision?
                              > What are we afraid of?
                              >

                              Play, I think you have drawn the wrong conclusion about my view of
                              this from what Lady C has said. I see no kingdom that is always
                              already here. I think that notion derives from the ending of the
                              temporal view of the self, and can only derive from it as a metaphor.
                              What is then known is not the kingdom, but the end of the temporal
                              sense of self, the Error. That is all that is known; the rest is the
                              unknown. The unknown can not be known by the decision to know it, for
                              when it is known, that decision maker no longer is. The notion of
                              remembering it again implies a past forgetting and a future
                              remembering, and when it is known, there is no past nor any future.
                              The self that is looking for it is what stops it from being. Anyway,
                              all I have been doing here is translating before terms into after
                              terms to continue the point I was making in my response to Lady C. My
                              question remains: Are we looking at the same thing?
                            • lady_caritas
                              Play, thank you for your research (Message #5876). Just some observations~ You say, These passages describe the human being as a microcosm of the universe,
                              Message 14 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                                Play, thank you for your research (Message #5876). Just some
                                observations~

                                You say, "These passages describe the human being as a microcosm of
                                the universe, having the essences of all things in him- or herself.
                                As the microcosm, human beings have the foundation to know, use, and
                                enjoy all things. Of all creatures, humans have the widest scope of
                                thought and action, encompassing all things, knowing and appreciating
                                all things, guiding and prospering all things, and transcending all
                                things.

                                All that the Holy One created in the world He created in man."

                                A Gnostic interpretation of "the Holy One" who is the creator of the
                                world would be the Demiurge of Gnostic mythology, not the True God or
                                Bythos (the Ineffable Infinite). The material universe is limited by
                                its physicality as we are also in our human state.

                                An important observation you made was that humans are capable
                                of "transcending all things." That's the point here. Humans who
                                become aware of the spiritual kingdom of the living father (not the
                                demiurge) are able to transcend the "fog" of the material world. Oh,
                                and this fog is very deceiving. That is why many feel that we are
                                not always capable of awakening from our blindness ("sleep") to
                                become aware of Gnosis without the assistance of a "savior" in
                                addition to our own efforts. "Jesus said, `[…] I found them all
                                intoxicated…'" (GTh, #28)

                                Our "first duty" would not be to "love nature" or "love the
                                creation." "Jesus said, `Whoever has become acquainted with the
                                world has found a corpse …'" (GTh, #56) IOW, the material world is
                                not the kingdom. Matter is equated with error. A flower might be
                                beautiful and serve as a trigger for a spiritual epiphany, but the
                                physical flower will eventually decay in this flawed world. We
                                cannot know the Ineffable Infinite completely while in this physical
                                state, or, as Will points out, we would cease to "be." However, we
                                _can_ become acquainted with the True God by means of images
                                reflected through our human conceptual filters. And this will serve
                                as a segue to my reply to Will . . .

                                Cari
                              • lady_caritas
                                Ah, Will, I am in total agreement with you (Message #5877) until we get to your explanations of quotes from the article on error. In answer to your question,
                                Message 15 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                                  Ah, Will, I am in total agreement with you (Message #5877) until we
                                  get to your explanations of quotes from the article on "error."

                                  In answer to your question, "Are we looking at the same thing?"
                                  (#5878), I would venture to posit that we possibly are, but that we
                                  are interpreting it differently.

                                  So, Will, you have confused me. Don't worry. I confuse easily.
                                  LOL If you view thinking of oneself in terms of time as "error," and
                                  if after a shift in the sense of one's self, you obviously remain a
                                  human physically, do you still wear a watch? How does a human ever
                                  completely escape our space/time continuum? "Time" may very well be
                                  an illusion, but even in your description of this process, you can't
                                  escape describing it in terms of "before" and "after." You see, even
                                  using a term like "eternal" indicates infinite "duration"
                                  (or "continuance in time").

                                  You say, "What is then known is not the kingdom, but the end of the
                                  temporal sense of self, the Error. That is all that is known; the
                                  rest is the unknown." So, Willy, if you have experienced the end of
                                  the temporal sense of yourself, where on earth _are_ you?

                                  Okay, okay, I'm toying with you. But I do have a point, . . . I
                                  think. :-)

                                  I describe the old sense of self as certainly having temporal aspects
                                  and because of that only viewing the world in physical and possibly
                                  psychological terms. A "god" or even a definition of "spirituality"
                                  would in essence still be a psychological extension of the self
                                  because the shift in sense of self with a truly pneumatic
                                  understanding has not occurred. You describe this shift in
                                  understanding when you say, "A metaphorical system may be seen as
                                  pointing to such a transition, but that fact can only be known after
                                  the transition has come into being. That same metaphorical system can
                                  also be interpreted in a before-transition way. The difference
                                  between the before and after understanding gleaned from the system is
                                  incommensurable. This is key to my scheme of things; the before view
                                  and the after view of the same metaphorical system are separated by a
                                  necessary transition in the one who holds the view, and since those
                                  views are incommensurable one with the other, the transition
                                  represents a discontinuity in one's sense of self."

                                  So, you accept the term "spiritual" only in reference to the
                                  transitional stage. "Ascribing the before to the world of matter and
                                  the after to the other world, the spiritual" is not your
                                  interpretation.

                                  Let's attempt to examine why.

                                  Perhaps your definition of "spiritual" differs from mine. You said
                                  that you could "see how the sensation of the transition could be seen
                                  as `being at one with.'" Yes, the mystical experience might be
                                  interpreted as such. However, we can conjecture that if we are
                                  _truly_ one with the Prime Source we might cease to "be." And, well,
                                  that hasn't happened yet, has it? LOL We either come back to the
                                  old self and repeatedly try to recreate the "at-one" sensation or we
                                  move through the transition, taking our new understanding to a new
                                  sense of self.

                                  Now at this point, you, Willy, seem to be in "unknown" territory, but
                                  you sense a "fullness" and repose you did not experience in the old
                                  self. I describe this as the spiritual realm. And, I don't view God
                                  as an anthropomorphic, psychological projection, but rather, as I
                                  have described before, I experience an Ineffable Infinite through my
                                  new sense of self. At the same time, I am still human. So, I cannot
                                  completely know the Infinite in my present finite state. There is
                                  movement and repose as I gain acquaintance of this divinity,
                                  this "kingdom."

                                  "…But the kingdom is inside of you. And it is outside of you."
                                  (GTh, #3) Why? Can there be an objective Truth that exists "before"
                                  as well as "after" my shift of awareness? Are we awakening from our
                                  sleep to a kingdom that was already there? I would
                                  speculate,. . .yes, .. simply because I am not the only one who has
                                  experienced this, after the shift in sense of self. This "presence"
                                  I interpret as the divine, a sort of pneumatic glue that connects the
                                  divine sparks in us all. And, this is not the same as devising some
                                  Object as a projection upon returning to a temporal sense of self.

                                  So, we come back to earth and relate in a practical way with
                                  the "fullness" of our new sails that keep us afloat as we journey
                                  through the temporal waters.

                                  Don't know if I've made any sense here. It's late. LOL

                                  Sharklady
                                • Gerry
                                  Reply to Wilbro’s message #5878: ... And yet, as Cari pointed out, we still reside in a temporal world—how our perceptions alter our views within this
                                  Message 16 of 29 , May 17, 2002

                                     

                                    Reply to Wilbro’s message #5878:

                                     

                                     

                                    I, too, think we’re talking about the same thing here, albeit from different perspectives.  If I may offer my 2¢, Will, here’s where I think you lost me:

                                     

                                    >>I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that notion derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and can only derive from it as a metaphor. What is then known is not the kingdom, but the end of the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is all that is known; the rest is the unknown....  The notion of remembering it again implies a past forgetting and a future remembering, and when it is known, there is no past nor any future.<<

                                     

                                    And yet, as Cari pointed out, we still reside in a temporal world—how our perceptions alter our views within this temporality need not affect the objective Truth.

                                     

                                    I guess what is puzzling me is that you seem to be referring to a 2-step transition from un-knowing to knowing, while perhaps I’ve taken it as a given that the original state was already one of knowing, i.e., knowing, forgetting, and then remembering.  True, that implies past and future, but only on the part of the knower—not that which is known. 

                                     

                                    >>"The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself as oneself, where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of self in terms of time, creates that temporal identity."<<

                                     

                                    Aren’t these identities and manners of thinking in terms of time created for all of us when we come into this world?  It seems to me that all babies want for their own needs to be met.  While we may want to view infants with an innocence that we no longer retain, I don’t equate that with being free from the bounds of our physical natures, or the apparent individuality we each have once expelled from the womb.

                                     

                                    Whether a conscious or unconscious act by each of us, or the mere result of being born, the fact that something “creates” the temporal identity seems to suggest that there exists a non-temporal identity.

                                     

                                    Anyway, I hope that wasn’t so short as to muddy the waters even further, but that may be about as much of a reply as I’ll be able to muster ’til I manage to get some projects out of the way.

                                     

                                    Gerry

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                  • wilbro99
                                    Reply to #5880: The Sharklady disposes: So, we come back to earth and relate in a practical way with the fullness of our new sails that keep us afloat as we
                                    Message 17 of 29 , May 17, 2002
                                      Reply to #5880:

                                      The Sharklady disposes: So, we come back to earth and relate in a
                                      practical way with the "fullness" of our new sails that keep us afloat
                                      as we journey through the temporal waters.

                                      That makes perfect sense. I don't think it matters what we make of
                                      that Presence so long as it fills our sails. I have had dialogues with
                                      others on this shift and we run the gamut on where we come out on it.
                                      The two who came to it as Catholics, became eclectic about it. There
                                      also seems to be a difference as to whether or not the shift was made
                                      at once or began with the empty between. I was first evicted from the
                                      temporal sense of self and it took me almost two years of living in
                                      emptiness before I found presence. In that sojourn I learned a great
                                      deal about that temporal sense of self. I didn't reach the experience
                                      of no-self till about ten years down the line. Those who get tossed at
                                      once into presence seem to be the ones who think of it in religious
                                      terms. Since this reply is so short, let me add some filler.

                                      LC: So, Will, you have confused me. Don't worry. I confuse easily.
                                      LOL If you view thinking of oneself in terms of time as "error," and
                                      if after a shift in the sense of one's self, you obviously remain a
                                      human physically, do you still wear a watch? How does a human ever
                                      completely escape our space/time continuum? "Time" may very well be an
                                      illusion, but even in your description of this process, you can't
                                      escape describing it in terms of "before" and "after." You see, even
                                      using a term like "eternal" indicates infinite "duration"
                                      (or "continuance in time").

                                      Simply to say "thinking of oneself in terms of time" does not convey
                                      the essence of the temporal identity that thinks in such a way. The
                                      implication is that all one need do is think differently, when, in
                                      fact, what is required is a shift in one's sense of self, i.e., the
                                      identity who does the thinking. Since the one who does the thinking
                                      reside in this world, I would suspect a watch is still needed,
                                      although I have never worn one. And, of course, any description of a
                                      shift must be cast in terms of a before and after, which includes the
                                      image of the one who makes the move, and must be understood as being
                                      only that, a description.

                                      LC: You say, "What is then known is not the kingdom, but the end of
                                      the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is all that is known; the
                                      rest is the unknown." So, Willy, if you have experienced the end of
                                      the temporal sense of yourself, where on earth _are_ you? Okay, okay,
                                      I'm toying with you. But I do have a point, . . . I think. :-)

                                      Of course, the unknown I was referring to was the "unknown territory"
                                      of fullness you referred to later as the place where we part
                                      descriptive company. Ok, I must get to the other posts.
                                    • wilbro99
                                      I said: I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that notion derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and can only derive from
                                      Message 18 of 29 , May 17, 2002
                                        I said: "I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that
                                        notion derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and
                                        can only derive from it as a metaphor. What is then known is not the
                                        kingdom, but the end of the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is
                                        all that is known; the rest is the unknown...."

                                        My error here was that I knew what I was referring to and did not make
                                        that reference clear. When I referred to the unknown, I was thinking
                                        only of the presence that ensues from that ending of the temporal
                                        sense of self. I was thinking that the notion of an ever present
                                        kingdom was a metaphor for that sense of presence, and any attempt to
                                        say that it is that is turning that unknown into the known. The next
                                        sentence, which you omitted goes like this: "The unknown can not be
                                        known by the decision to know it, for when it is known, that decision
                                        maker no longer is." I thought that connected to what I meant by the
                                        unknown, but since both of you are not mind readers, I guess I goofed.
                                        I do not, nor do I see how I can, deny the world I find myself in.
                                        Even if what I find myself in is only the "seems" of it, so long as I
                                        can make these words come into being by pressing keys on this thing in
                                        front of me, that seems to me as if the seems are for real.

                                        G: I guess what is puzzling me is that you seem to be referring to a
                                        2-step transition from un-knowing to knowing, while perhaps I've taken
                                        it as a given that the original state was already one of knowing,
                                        i.e., knowing, forgetting, and then remembering. True, that implies
                                        past and future, but only on the part of the knower-not that which is
                                        known.

                                        The notion of having known, forgetting, and remembering is, if I have
                                        it straight, the Greek theory of recollection. Under that scheme of
                                        it, the loss of the error would be the remembering, the waking up to
                                        what had already been known, the wiping away of the
                                        fog of forgetfulness, and so on. I have a different scheme, one that
                                        derives from my experience of the ending of a temporal sense of self.
                                        Now, it may be that there are two different "original states," and
                                        that the "original state" as defined by the forgetting of it and
                                        remembering of it, which defines the term "original," is not the same
                                        as the presence come upon when the temporal sense of self comes to an
                                        end, leaving behind a presential sense of self. That is my question. I
                                        know only the latter and I think the former is only a way of
                                        describing it that ensues from the belief that that is the way it is.
                                        I do not believe it so I see it differently.

                                        I see it as follows: There is a coming into being of the temporal
                                        sense of self because of the ability to remember and identify with a
                                        me that things happen to. That identity is the Error. The loss of that
                                        identity brings a sense of presence into being that is a new sense of
                                        presence, there being no way to remember back through the presence of
                                        the error to a before of the error.



                                        --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Reply to Wilbro's message #5878:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I, too, think we're talking about the same thing here, albeit from
                                        different perspectives. If I may offer my 2¢, Will, here's where I
                                        think you lost me:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >>I see no kingdom that is always already here. I think that notion
                                        derives from the ending of the temporal view of the self, and can only
                                        derive from it as a metaphor. What is then known is not the kingdom,
                                        but the end of the temporal sense of self, the Error. That is all that
                                        is known; the rest is the unknown.... The notion of remembering it
                                        again implies a past forgetting and a future remembering, and when it
                                        is known, there is no past nor any future.<<
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > And yet, as Cari pointed out, we still reside in a temporal
                                        world—how our perceptions alter our views within this temporality need
                                        not affect the objective Truth.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I guess what is puzzling me is that you seem to be referring to a
                                        2-step transition from un-knowing to knowing, while perhaps I've taken
                                        it as a given that the original state was already one of knowing,
                                        i.e., knowing, forgetting, and then remembering. True, that implies
                                        past and future, but only on the part of the knower—not that which is
                                        known.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >>"The error, as I see it, is a temporal taking of oneself as
                                        oneself, where one thinks self in terms of time, and in thinking of
                                        self in terms of time, creates that temporal identity."<<
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Aren't these identities and manners of thinking in terms of time
                                        created for all of us when we come into this world? It seems to me
                                        that all babies want for their own needs to be met. While we may want
                                        to view infants with an innocence that we no longer retain, I don't
                                        equate that with being free from the bounds of our physical natures,
                                        or the apparent individuality we each have once expelled from the
                                        womb.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Whether a conscious or unconscious act by each of us, or the mere
                                        result of being born, the fact that something "creates" the temporal
                                        identity seems to suggest that there exists a non-temporal identity.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Anyway, I hope that wasn't so short as to muddy the waters even
                                        further, but that may be about as much of a reply as I'll be able to
                                        muster 'til I manage to get some projects out of the way.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Gerry
                                      • Gerry
                                        Reply to Play’s message #5905: Frankly, I hardly know where to begin here, but let me try to piece together some comments that have caught my attention. ...
                                        Message 19 of 29 , May 21, 2002

                                           

                                          Reply to Play’s message #5905:

                                           

                                           

                                           

                                          Frankly, I hardly know where to begin here, but let me try to piece together some comments that have caught my attention.

                                           

                                          >>[Cari] I have found my path to be Gnostic (or Christian Gnostic).  I don't prefer to be called a "Christian," even though I find Christ to be a soter, because that usually denotes an "orthodox Christian," which I am not.

                                          [Play]  Did you mean to say savior?<<

                                           

                                          Actually, Play, I think Cari fully intended to say “soter” in that statement.  This is, after all, a forum for the discussion of Gnosticism.  Greek terminology just happens to come along with the historical territory of the subject matter at hand.  By using that specific reference (along with noting the obvious context of her comments—there, and in previous posts), I see Cari choosing very carefully to demonstrate that her idea of salvation has nothing to do with such orthodox concepts as vicarious atonement.  This is why I’m baffled that you then proceed to “explain” to her how we all might find salvation within.  To say that you seem to be preaching to the choir would be a gross understatement.  In fact, it might even be more accurate to say that much of your commentary could be construed as a pistic sermon to a Gnostic congregation.

                                           

                                          >>I want to understand why you think the world is flawed. I don't agree with that notion. That is true. I have read Gerry's discussion and PMCV's and your take on it. I still don't understand and maybe it is because my question still remains unanswered.  Who views "the world" as flawed? Us [humans] or the Prime Source?<<

                                           

                                          Actually, Play, your question has already been answered.  The latest attempt to clarify that issue for you was by Cari, right before you started patronizing her.  And surely you recall when PMCV elaborated on the correct usage and origin of the “Prime Source.”  To suggest that the Prime Source “views” anything is, in fact, anthropomorphizing the ineffable.

                                           

                                          If you really read the examples (either hypothetical or anecdotal) in my post, to which Cari referred, and you still don’t understand why we see the world as flawed, then I seriously doubt there is anything else I could say or do to help you understand our point of view.

                                           

                                          >>The blend between mind, body and spirit has incredible powers over what becomes manifest in our lives… It becomes a matter of what governs the mind more; the needs of the body or of the spirit? The body does not need what  the spirit needs and  vice-versa but each part needs it's own kind of "food" to have health for if one dies or become inbalanced, so does the other.<<  [Play #5907]

                                           

                                          If this is so, then when the body dies, so does the spirit.  You have described a chain of paper dolls—cut the link between two and the chain falls apart.  For a more Gnostic viewpoint, if you’re interested, you may want to go back and re-read Hey Market’s analogy of the nested dolls.

                                           

                                          As for following every religion one can name, an important question would be whether one is actually identifying the Prime Source via a shallow exploration of each of those traditions—or simply slapping some universal Happy Face on cross-cultural representations of the demiurge?  While one may find them seemingly similar, the difference is like Day and Night.

                                           

                                           

                                          Gerry

                                           

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