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

Re: Jewish mysticism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 29 , May 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 29 , May 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 29 , May 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 29 , May 14, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 29 , May 15, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 29 , May 15, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 29 , May 16, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 29 , May 17, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment

                               

                              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 14 of 29 , May 17, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 29 , May 17, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 29 , May 21, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                     

                                    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.