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

Re: Thomasine Metaphor

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 29 , May 17 2:55 PM
    • 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 2 of 29 , May 17 6:15 PM
      • 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 3 of 29 , May 21 10:45 PM
        • 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.