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

Re: (im-)Perfection

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Play, I would like to jump in one one thing here (and I hope you and Gerry will forgive me). You ask... ... tell?
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 1, 2002
      Hey Play, I would like to jump in one one thing here (and I hope you
      and Gerry will forgive me). You ask...

      >Is there a gnostic story of Moses? What does it
      tell?<

      There is in fact a Gnostic treatment, and according to it Moses got
      his law from a wicked tyranical Demiurge (in other words the Law is a
      cunstruct for humans to exact political control on other humans). No
      one expects you to give up your beliefs or what you have learned from
      other religions for Gnosticism, just to set them asside momentarily
      so as to avoid preconceptions as to just what we are talking about.
      If you wish to know what Gnosticism is, then it is important that you
      understand that we do in fact not care about that "Lord" in the
      burning bush, he is not our lord. If you take that God of Moses, and
      switch him with the Serpent in the garden, then you will have a
      better idea of where we come from. Gnosticism is indeed a form of
      Judaism, but it is one that turns the normal understanding of Judaism
      upside down. We use Jewish mythology for an opposite effect.
      Therefore the answer to "Are you invalidating the story?" would be
      yes (for me and most of the forms of Gnosticism at least).

      There is also something else that stood out to me that perhaps you
      could clerify. You make these two statements....

      >To get you to see that if you view the creation as flawed only opens
      up the idea that it isn't good enough and has little or no value for
      understanding. I think that is a grave error in and of itself.<

      and...

      >Now that is quite true. He isn't missing the mark. Neither are
      you or anyone here. This isn't about right or wrong or missing the
      mark or any of that.<

      I'm not sure how you can make both of these statements. I'm assuming
      I'm misunderstanding you here. It seems to me that if anyone can be
      in "error" then it _is_ about right and wrong.

      I jump in and say these things because your view seems rather
      enigmatic to me. Truth is, I think you may have some preconceptions
      about Gnosticism that maybe came from spurious sources. No problem,
      we just have to figure out the terms right? ;) .

      >But please understand that my questions aren't meant to invalidate
      the importance of traditional gnostic ideas. I hope that my ideas
      will compliment them even if I seem to be turning them inside out
      sometimes. I'm not bucking to be a traditional gnostic. I only want
      to know and talk about what is true. I also want to be careful not to
      throw the baby out with the bath water.<

      And that seems to bring about the point very nicely. No one really
      cares if you become a Gnostic or not, Gnosticism doesn't look for
      converts so that isn't the point. However, one must know what is baby
      and what is bathwater before they know what to throw out. What's more
      is one must even know if they are bathing a baby or cooking stew.

      So, if sometimes we look over at you and go "why are you looking for
      a baby in our stew pot?" don't be angry, just try not to assume the
      order of our household. Try also not to head over to the toilet, we
      don't want you to touch our baby after digging in there ;)

      >I'm just sharing my perspective on the truth for what it is worth.
      From what I can tell from the way you are responding to my posts, it
      isn't worth much.<

      None of our perspectives on truth is worth much, not yours, not mine.
      Truth is beyond perspective. This makes it impossible to really get
      very far in trying to discuss truth itself. For that reason we are
      not so much here to talk about what truth is, but how Gnostics get
      there. This is not meant to invalidate your beliefs Play, but I am
      getting the impression that you may expect an inverse from us that we
      cannot give either... validation for your beliefs.

      Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to disagree with Gnosticism, and
      to express it fully. Just say "Hmmmm, I disagree with Gnosticism on
      that point because...... ". You can also disagree with me (or anyone
      here individually) by the same token. All I ask is that you remember
      that this is not an ecclectic spirituality club, it is a Gnosticism
      club.

      Pretend for a second that you are a Christian who is in a LaVayan
      Satanism club, not to convert anyone, but because you are genuinely
      curious about what Satanists believe after you found out that they
      don't really worship Satan the way you were told, but that most of
      them do not even really believe in Satan (this scenario is not in
      fact far from the truth here, and is a more apt analogy of yours and
      our interaction than you may realize). Then pretend that the
      Satanists know who you are, and are ok with your being there as long
      as you don't start telling them that they need to have faith in Jesus
      in order to know truth (since you know that saying this to the
      Satanists only annoys them). So you are better off disagreeing with
      the Satanists on the social implications of thier practice, which is
      more to the point anyways. Since the social implications are
      indicative of the validity of thier overall belief in some ways, you
      are still discussing truth with them, you are simply doing it
      tactfully. :)

      PMCV
    • Gerry
      ... You know what, Play? I think you would be better served right now by making an attempt to question your own perspective rather than trying to fathom the
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 1, 2002

         

        Reply to Play’s message #5954:

         

         

        >>OK. But I'm still trying to make sense out of those "perspectives". I do want to understand but I still have questions.<<

         

        You know what, Play?  I think you would be better served right now by making an attempt to question your own perspective rather than trying to fathom the depths of classical Gnosticism.  That’s exactly why I asked you what I did in post #5818.  You keep claiming that you want to understand, yet find the concept of a flawed world to be something alien to you.  Well, that’s why I raised those issues within the context of concepts which you had brought to the table.

         

        I questioned your thoughts on the Light & Dark, human judgement being the cause of the separation, numerous definitions—what’s odd to me is that while you can’t see the flawed world within the context of our perspective, I can still manage to see it within yours.  I guess I was hoping that a few strategically targeted questions might help you to spot those same contradictions which had jumped out at me.

         

        I’m not sure which struck you as more unpleasant:  the fact that you found my tone indicative of “irritation” or the mere thought of considering the scenario of the hypothetical murdering rapist?  Frankly, Play, it was INTENDED to rock your world—why bother sugar-coating it?  The more you persist in claiming that you want to understand the Gnostic perspective, the more I’m going to expect that you’ll actually put forth some effort into understanding what members are saying—that doesn’t involve you projecting some notion of a glorified, seemingly omnibenevolent Demiurge.

         

        For instance, I took a different tack in my last post and asked you ONE question, hoping to be more precise in what I was asking of you.  By breaking that paragraph into several parts in your reply and inserting all sorts of disclaimers and tangential references, you managed to completely dance around it.  PMCV’s already addressed it, but I’d like to reiterate:

         

        Question:

         

        >>And what is flawed to you holds the key to understanding for me. That is another intent of mine. To get you to see that if you view the creation as flawed only opens up the idea that it isn't good enough and has little or no value for understanding. I think that is a grave error in and of itself.<<

         

        I could swear I’ve seen PMCV comment, even recently, that he does NOT claim that one cannot find value in the world.  That would be somewhat difficult for an “experiential” Gnostic.  Maybe I didn’t read that here, but at another group.  Regardless, aside from the fact that you misconstrued him as a world-hater, I’m curious why you would find his view to be in “error”—“grave,” no less?  I thought you stated earlier that we were all perfect—just as we are (posts 5776, 5792).  If that’s the case, I hardly see how he could have missed the mark—whatever his alleged belief or view.

         

        Response:

         

        I understand that. I wasn't questioning PMCV about whether he found value in the world. I was questioning the gnostic perspective that it was flawed. I don't see how seeing the world, or the creation, or us, or anything as flawed or in error serves us....  He isn't missing the mark. Neither are you or anyone here. This isn't about right or wrong or missing the mark or any of that.

         

        Yes, Play, when you suggest that you find a certain view to be in error (sin… missing the mark) and choose to express said belief at a club whose members are known to hold said view, then you have indeed claimed that they have fallen short.  I would find that presumptuous under normal circumstances, but when the statement comes from someone who claims we are all perfect, “just the way we are,” and who cannot see a flawed world around him, then such recognition of obvious “error” strikes me as utterly conflicted. 

         

        >>The infinite is infinite but it doesn't "speak"? Doesn't sound too infinite to me. Sounds pretty random and meaningless to me.<<

         

        That’s because you’re still conceptualizing it in temporal terms.  Granted, you’ve discarded those qualities which you deemed less desirable, but even when left with an all-loving, super-compassionate father figure who wants the very best for us, you’re still talking about something for which most of us have no use.  I said it before—this sounds more like Neale Donald Walsch.

         

        >>I see it this way. The infinite doesn't long to be anything.<<

         

        I stand corrected.  My assumption, however, was based on your earlier comments:

         

        >>.... this experience of light and dark is something we want to experience. That the Prime Source loves us so much that He/She/It facilitates this desire for us with His unlimited compassion.<<  [#5796]

         

        If we come from the Prime Source, and It wanted to experience Light & Dark in this temporal reality, I reckon you can see where your description resembles “longing.” 

         

        >>Maybe I should limit my questions and conversation to include only those things gnostics want to talk about. But I don't see how that serves either of us????<<

         

        Well, at a very specifically defined Gnostic forum, I think that serves us just fine.  Even for someone who, as PMCV pointed out, may come from another perspective and wish to learn more about Gnosticism, that same guideline still serves us well.  If they come, however, not interested in gaining understanding, but with notions of converting the heretical masses, then there are other clubs, lists, and communities where their participation would be more appropriate.

         

        Seriously, Play, if you think my feelings will be hurt by your not responding to any of this, in truth, I’d much rather you said nothing and actually pondered what has already been discussed.  “Sharing” is one thing, but when you make comments as you did to Cari, it makes a person wonder:

         

        >>It has become common knowledge to me now and I wish to share it with others like you who are close to raising "the veil" in your life.<<  [Play #5905]

         

        Perhaps we’re “all in the same boat,” as you’ve said, but evidently, some of us have better seats—at least, in your mind.  And that’s fine, Play, really, if that’s the way you feel, but you should realize how such comments come across as little different from mainstream proselytizing.

         

        Gerry

         

      • Rob Thompson
        I don t know of a Gnostic story of Moses, but I do remember a story of Moses from Egypt. I can t remember the source but I read it in College. Very different
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 1, 2002

          I don't know of a Gnostic story of Moses, but I do remember a story of Moses from Egypt. I can't remember the source but I read it in College. Very different from the Hebrew point of view.

          Rob

            pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          Hey Play, I would like to jump in one one thing here (and I hope you
          and Gerry will forgive me). You ask...

          >Is there a gnostic story of Moses? What does it
          tell?<

          There is in fact a Gnostic treatment, and according to it Moses got
          his law from a wicked tyranical Demiurge (in other words the Law is a
          cunstruct for humans to exact political control on other humans). No
          one expects you to give up your beliefs or what you have learned from
          other religions for Gnosticism, just to set them asside momentarily
          so as to avoid preconceptions as to just what we are talking about.
          If you wish to know what Gnosticism is, then it is important that you
          understand that we do in fact not care about that "Lord" in the
          burning bush, he is not our lord. If you take that God of Moses, and
          switch him with the Serpent in the garden, then you will have a
          better idea of where we come from. Gnosticism is indeed a form of
          Judaism, but it is one that turns the normal understanding of Judaism
          upside down. We use Jewish mythology for an opposite effect.
          Therefore the answer to "Are you invalidating the story?" would be
          yes (for me and most of the forms of Gnosticism at least).

          There is also something else that stood out to me that perhaps you
          could clerify. You make these two statements....

          >To get you to see that if you view the creation as flawed only opens
          up the idea that it isn't good enough and has little or no value for
          understanding. I think that is a grave error in and of itself.<

          and...

          >Now that is quite true. He isn't missing the mark. Neither are
          you or anyone here. This isn't about right or wrong or missing the
          mark or any of that.<

          I'm not sure how you can make both of these statements. I'm assuming
          I'm misunderstanding you here. It seems to me that if anyone can be
          in "error" then it _is_ about right and wrong.

          I jump in and say these things because your view seems rather
          enigmatic to me. Truth is, I think you may have some preconceptions
          about Gnosticism that maybe came from spurious sources. No problem,
          we just have to figure out the terms right? ;) .

          >But please understand that my questions aren't meant to invalidate
          the importance of traditional gnostic ideas. I hope that my ideas
          will compliment them even if I seem to be turning them inside out
          sometimes. I'm not bucking to be a traditional gnostic. I only want
          to know and talk about what is true. I also want to be careful not to
          throw the baby out with the bath water.<

          And that seems to bring about the point very nicely. No one really
          cares if you become a Gnostic or not, Gnosticism doesn't look for
          converts so that isn't the point. However, one must know what is baby
          and what is bathwater before they know what to throw out. What's more
          is one must even know if they are bathing a baby or cooking stew.

          So, if sometimes we look over at you and go "why are you looking for
          a baby in our stew pot?" don't be angry, just try not to assume the
          order of our household. Try also not to head over to the toilet, we
          don't want you to touch our baby after digging in there ;)

          >I'm just sharing my perspective on the truth for what it is worth.
          From what I can tell from the way you are responding to my posts, it
          isn't worth much.<

          None of our perspectives on truth is worth much, not yours, not mine.
          Truth is beyond perspective. This makes it impossible to really get
          very far in trying to discuss truth itself. For that reason we are
          not so much here to talk about what truth is, but how Gnostics get
          there. This is not meant to invalidate your beliefs Play, but I am
          getting the impression that you may expect an inverse from us that we
          cannot give either... validation for your beliefs.

          Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to disagree with Gnosticism, and
          to express it fully. Just say "Hmmmm, I disagree with Gnosticism on
          that point because...... ". You can also disagree with me (or anyone
          here individually) by the same token. All I ask is that you remember
          that this is not an ecclectic spirituality club, it is a Gnosticism
          club.

          Pretend for a second that you are a Christian who is in a LaVayan
          Satanism club, not to convert anyone, but because you are genuinely
          curious about what Satanists believe after you found out that they
          don't really worship Satan the way you were told, but that most of
          them do not even really believe in Satan (this scenario is not in
          fact far from the truth here, and is a more apt analogy of yours and
          our interaction than you may realize). Then pretend that the
          Satanists know who you are, and are ok with your being there as long
          as you don't start telling them that they need to have faith in Jesus
          in order to know truth (since you know that saying this to the
          Satanists only annoys them). So you are better off disagreeing with
          the Satanists on the social implications of thier practice, which is
          more to the point anyways. Since the social implications are
          indicative of the validity of thier overall belief in some ways, you
          are still discussing truth with them, you are simply doing it
          tactfully. :)

          PMCV


          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

        • Frater Scorpius
          93 ... Possibly you are referring to the Semitic tribes related to the Hyksos Dynasties, whom the Egyptians made a big point of having defeated and expelled.
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 2, 2002
            93

            --- Rob Thompson <abelard42@...> wrote:

            > I do
            > remember a story of Moses from Egypt. I can't
            > remember the source but I read it in College. Very
            > different from the Hebrew point of view.

            Possibly you are referring to the Semitic tribes
            related to the Hyksos Dynasties, whom the Egyptians
            made a big point of having defeated and expelled. Some
            scholars believe that this is their version of the
            "Exodus". Josephus even went so far as to say that the
            Patriarch Joseph in his descendents (spoken of in
            Genesis) were the Hyksos "Shepherd Kings" themselves,
            a theory which still has some adherents today.

            93 93/93

            Scorpius

            =====
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templeofhorus

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
            http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
          • lady_caritas
            I don t know of a Gnostic story of Moses, … (Rob, #5959) Hi, Rob. One that comes to mind is _Ptolemy s Epistle to Flora_ ~
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 2, 2002
              "I don't know of a Gnostic story of Moses, …" (Rob, #5959)

              Hi, Rob. One that comes to mind is _Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora_ ~

              http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/flora.htm

              I agree with the "Archive Notes" in the link above that Bentley
              Layton's translation is preferable. Nonetheless, this letter written
              by the Valentinian teacher, Ptolemy, although an example of a more
              relaxed view of the demiurge, does show the "craftsman" as the god
              who is but one of multiple authors of the law.

              "For if the Law was not ordained by the perfect God himself, as we
              have already taught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot
              possibly make, the legislator must be some one other than these two.
              In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything
              in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is
              between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate."

              "First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the
              Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not
              by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by
              other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division."

              In this piece Ptolemy is instructing a woman apparently of
              conventional Christianity.

              "His manner of presentation is elementary, using terms that are moral
              and nonmetaphysical, and almost entirely within the realm of
              conventional Christian language … […] ..Ptolemy's conclusions take
              him to the very edge of metaphysics and myth, which he promises will
              form the next lesson his course ( […] his next lesson to Flora does
              not seem to have survived).
              […]
              In the opening of the _Epistle_, Ptolemy sets out to refute two other
              opinions on the source of the old Testament law. One opinion
              identified the legislator with the highest God; this was the view of
              ordinary Christianity and a great part of Judaism. The other
              identified the legislator with the devil; scholars have been
              uncertain about the source of this opinion, but it may refer to
              gnostics who followed a myth like the _The Secret Book According to
              John_ or _The Revelation of Adam_, where the craftsman of the world
              (Ialdabaoth) appears to be identical with the god of Israel."
              (Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_, pages 306-307)
            • play_nice_now
              You know what Gerry? I will only respond to one comment and leave the others alone for now. Like I said before, I doubt anything constructive will come out of
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 2, 2002
                You know what Gerry? I will only respond to one comment and leave the
                others alone for now. Like I said before, I doubt anything
                constructive will come out of a discourse between you and I. I have
                some important insights into how even a murdering rapist is accepted
                and loved by God but it is way out of the scope of this club and is
                why I didn't go there. Anyone who still sees the law and error in
                this creation can never understand.

                --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:

                > I stand corrected. My assumption, however, was based on your
                earlier comments:

                Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions. Do you really care about
                how I view gnosticism? Do you really care about my questions being
                answered or is it more important to you that you think you answered
                them already? You want to discuss it the way you want to discuss it.
                Answer it the way you wish it to be answered. Basically, what you are
                really telling me is to just shut up and listen. So, OK. I'll take
                your advice. As PMCV asked, I'll do this tactfully and just say that
                at the present time, I simply don't agree with many of the concepts
                presented to me so far. However, that doesn't mean that I disagree
                with all of them or that I wish to change the way you see it. I do
                wish for you to attempt to understand what I see and take it for
                whatever it is worth to you. If you are ever interested in why I
                disagree, just ask. But I'll have to ask you to be as patient with me
                as you want me to be with you and others here.

                I call for a truce and I apologize if I came across that I know
                better than any of you here. I don't. Actually I don't "know" shit.
                But I do have some insights of where we may be able to find truth and
                how you can come to know it. And it has nothing to do with flaw and
                error.

                peace,
                play
              • lady_caritas
                I have some important insights into how even a murdering rapist is accepted and loved by God but it is way out of the scope of this club and is why I didn t
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 2, 2002
                  "I have some important insights into how even a murdering rapist is
                  accepted and loved by God but it is way out of the scope of this club
                  and is why I didn't go there. Anyone who still sees the law and error
                  in this creation can never understand." (Play, #5962)

                  Oh, pooh. "NEVER understand," Play? Excuse me for butting in, … but
                  you wonder why Gerry mentioned your patronizing tone? And after a
                  comment like that you continue to say, "I call for a truce and I
                  apologize if I came across that I know better than any of you here. I
                  don't. Actually I don't "know" shit. But I do have some insights of
                  where we may be able to find truth and how you can come to know it.
                  And it has nothing to do with flaw and error."

                  So, you "don't `know' shit'?" But you DO "have some insights of
                  where we may be able to find truth and how you can come to know it"?
                  So, which is it Play? Sounds like you're all over the map here.

                  A Gnostic viewpoint might very well recognize "flaw and error" in
                  this world, so it looks like some Gnostics might not be able to "come
                  to know it" without changing their worldview. Do I hear a hint of
                  proselytizing? Many believers of a loving, accepting God of
                  which you speak figure there is something wrong with our world.
                  Actually, Play, religions and philosophies quite often develop as a
                  way of trying to make sense of a world that is perceived as flawed.
                  Some religions blame humans and others don't. I accept that you
                  don't consider our world to be flawed. I disagree. I sense that we
                  are at a point where any more words about the subject may not help
                  you comprehend our viewpoint. So, perhaps understanding us will only
                  come in an experiential way, and you might still disagree (which is
                  okay).

                  You say to Gerry, "Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions."

                  I would say that Gerry comments were more than assumptions. I'd say
                  they were reasonable deductions based on comments of yours, such as
                  the one he referenced for you in #5957. IOW, Play, you have a habit
                  of offering conflicting statements, which only confuses members here
                  as to what your point really is.

                  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Play, and assume (if I'm
                  allowed to use that term) that you have sincere intentions. However,
                  as Gerry and others have said, the focus of our attention in this
                  group is to learn about Gnosticism and our relationship thereto. We
                  are not here to determine for others "where" truth lies. IOW, you
                  may discuss your ideas in RELATION to Gnosticism. For instance, you
                  say, "If there is such a thing as universal truth, and I believed
                  that there was, this had to be the case. It should kind of fit
                  together like a puzzle. That was the logic behind the theory. To my
                  satisfaction at least, after detailed research and experience, it no
                  longer is just a theory. It has become common knowledge to me now and
                  I wish to share it with others like you who are close to raising "the
                  veil" in your life. I can provide all sorts of references, ideas and
                  quotes on all sorts of topics to clearly present my case if anyone
                  here is interested." (Play, #5905) Well, fine, but you may not do
                  that in this group *unless* there is a clear connection to a Gnostic
                  topic being discussed. You may certainly "present" your "case" in
                  another forum if you should so choose.

                  Now, Play, you say you are here to learn about Gnosticism. Opinions
                  are fine, even passionate ones, as long as they are related to the
                  focus of this forum. Lay them out on the table. We certainly all do
                  that. Others can try new ideas on for size if they choose. We
                  possibly can grow on our respective paths from sharing and discussing
                  and debating, but we do NOT have the intention of converting anyone
                  or expecting others, sometimes even after considerable explanation,
                  to understand or agree. Nor should you during discussion in this
                  group.

                  Peace,
                  Cari

                  P. S. I realize that in your view there is the likelihood that I
                  have entirely misinterpreted your position. This postscript acts as
                  an admission (*not* stemming from an unworthy, guilt-ridden self
                  image) to the possibility that I could very well be in "error."
                • Rob Thompson
                  Thankyou for the primary source. I enjoy getting new things to look at and try to add to my sources!! When it comes to law from the Hebrew Bible, the sources
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 3, 2002

                     Thankyou for the primary source. I enjoy getting new things to look at and try to add to my sources!! When it comes to law from the Hebrew Bible, the sources are sometimes unclear. Ancient world of the Jews had to Capitals, and two oral traditions, the Hebrew Bible today is the combination of these two sources, those it leads itself to others chimming in their own belief of what was Gods Law.

                    Rob

                      lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                    "I don't know of a Gnostic story of Moses, �" (Rob, #5959)

                    Hi, Rob.  One that comes to mind is _Ptolemy's Epistle to Flora_ ~

                    http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/flora.htm

                    I agree with the "Archive Notes" in the link above that Bentley
                    Layton's translation is preferable.  Nonetheless, this letter written
                    by the Valentinian teacher, Ptolemy, although an example of a more
                    relaxed view of the demiurge, does show the "craftsman" as the god
                    who is but one of multiple authors of the law. 

                    "For if the Law was not ordained by the perfect God himself, as we
                    have already taught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot
                    possibly make, the legislator must be some one other than these two.
                    In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything
                    in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is
                    between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate."

                    "First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the
                    Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not
                    by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by
                    other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division."

                    In this piece Ptolemy is instructing a woman apparently of
                    conventional Christianity. 

                    "His manner of presentation is elementary, using terms that are moral
                    and nonmetaphysical, and almost entirely within the realm of
                    conventional Christian language � [�] ..Ptolemy's conclusions take
                    him to the very edge of metaphysics and myth, which he promises will
                    form the next lesson his course (  [�] his next lesson to Flora does
                    not seem to have survived). 
                    [�]
                    In the opening of the _Epistle_, Ptolemy sets out to refute two other
                    opinions on the source of the old Testament law.  One opinion
                    identified the legislator with the highest God; this was the view of
                    ordinary Christianity and a great part of Judaism. The other
                    identified the legislator with the devil; scholars have been
                    uncertain about the source of this opinion, but it may refer to
                    gnostics who followed a myth like the _The Secret Book According to
                    John_ or _The Revelation of Adam_, where the craftsman of the world
                    (Ialdabaoth) appears to be identical with the god of Israel." 
                    (Bentley Layton, _The Gnostic Scriptures_, pages 306-307)



                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

                  • lady_caritas
                    You re welcome, Rob. Actually, your mention of primary sources reminded me that it might be a good idea to mention a few sources for Gnostic scripture for
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 4, 2002
                      You're welcome, Rob.

                      Actually, your mention of "primary" sources reminded me that it might
                      be a good idea to mention a few sources for Gnostic scripture for any
                      newcomers to Gnosticism who might be interested. I already
                      referenced the book, _The Gnostic Scriptures_ by Bentley Layton.
                      This book contains selected, important Gnostic scriptures in addition
                      to informative introductions and annotations. James Robinson's _The
                      Nag Hammadi Library_ offers a complete edition of the ancient codices
                      discovered in Egypt in 1945.

                      Also, an extensive collection of primary documents related to
                      Gnosticism, including the Nag Hammadi Library, can be found online ~
                      http://gnosis.org/library.html . We are especially grateful to one
                      of our members, Terje, for collecting material for this library. :-)

                      (The link for the homepage of the Gnostic Archive is ~
                      http://gnosis.org/ ~ where one can find much resource material in the
                      way of articles, book suggestions, audio lectures, and an index of
                      links.)

                      Cari
                    • pmcvflag
                      Hate to say it Play Nice , but I m forced to question your grasp on the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements simply don t pan out. I say
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 5, 2002
                        Hate to say it "Play Nice", but I'm forced to question your grasp on
                        the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements simply
                        don't pan out. I say this not to upset you, but to give you the
                        opportunity to examine your statements a little more closely before
                        you post them. Gerry and Cari are completely justified in questioning
                        the way you come accross. However, let me base my points on the
                        idealogical, for instance....

                        If there is such a thing as the "Infinite" source, then you are right
                        to some extent to point out that the notion of a "flaw" is in error
                        (since no opposites exist there). On the other hand it also means
                        that the "everything is good" ideal is equally in error. Someone once
                        said that nothing is good or evil but that our thinking makes it so
                        (yes, it was a Gnostic ;)).

                        Let me post this again since I don't think it hit home....

                        "Therefore they have introduced other types of explination, some
                        saying that it is according to providence that the things which exist
                        have thier being. These are the people who observe the stability and
                        the conformity of the movement of creation. Others say that it is
                        something alien. These are the people who observe the diversity and
                        the lawlessness and the evil of the powers. Others say that the
                        things which exist are what is destined to happen. These are the
                        people who were occupied with this matter. Others that it is
                        something in accordance with nature. Others say that it is self
                        existent. The majority, however, all who have reached as far as the
                        visible elements, do not know anything more than them."

                        The difference between the Gnostic "flaw" and the New Age rose
                        colored glasses? Well the difference is that we make our mistake
                        conciously rather than out of ignorace or the pathological need to
                        feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the dual nature necessary for time
                        to exist. We do it for the sake of description. However, that isn't
                        the problem. The fact is, until you know what Gnostics mean by the
                        things they say, you don't really know if you agree or disagree, nor
                        how to state what is right or wrong about it. The thing is, you are
                        still doing so. The word for this behavior is "presumption", and many
                        people find it annoying. I will be patient, as you have asked of us,
                        but don't think that "patience" is the same as letting you off the
                        hook where critical thinking is concerned.

                        >Actually I don't "know" shit. But I do have some insights of where
                        we may be able to find truth and how you can come to know it. And it
                        has nothing to do with flaw and error.<

                        If you "don't know shit", then that is about what the "insights" you
                        offer are worth. That doesn't mean that they may not be true, they
                        just haven't flowered into true cogniscence yet. Hold on to them,
                        test them, and after you _really_ know what we are talking about see
                        if they stand up to what you may learn here. We also believe we have
                        some insights as to where to find truth, and how to come to know
                        it.... and it has much to do with flaw and error (at least in an
                        allegorical sense). To add to that, there are some here who know
                        thier "shit" pretty well.

                        I hope you are able to take this in the light it is meant. I am
                        giving you a hard time, but it is not meant in an angry manner at
                        all. I think the fact is that there are a few basic principles to
                        Gnosticism that may still be a little foggy to you, let alone the
                        deep stuff for now. Yes, there is a great deal of study that is going
                        to be involved if you wish to have some understanding of Gnosticism
                        (whether or not you decide you agre with it), and you stated that you
                        are in fact curious. Any true esoteic path is going to be blood sweat
                        and tears, expect some work and some concepts that had not previously
                        hit you. This is a continual process, and any worth while esoteric
                        path is a tremendous amount of work.

                        PMCV
                      • play_nice_now
                        ... on ... That is partly because I m not explaining them clear enough and also partly because this is a very difficult subject to present in an absolute sense
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 6, 2002
                          --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                          > Hate to say it "Play Nice", but I'm forced to question your grasp
                          on
                          > the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements simply
                          > don't pan out.

                          That is partly because I'm not explaining them clear enough and also
                          partly because this is a very difficult subject to present in an
                          absolute sense of the word as you well know.

                          > I say this not to upset you, but to give you the
                          > opportunity to examine your statements a little more closely before
                          > you post them.

                          I understand and examine my statements more closely than you think.

                          > Gerry and Cari are completely justified in questioning
                          > the way you come accross.

                          Of course they are. So are you and so am I.

                          > However, let me base my points on the
                          > idealogical, for instance....
                          >
                          > If there is such a thing as the "Infinite" source, then you are
                          right
                          > to some extent to point out that the notion of a "flaw" is in error
                          > (since no opposites exist there). On the other hand it also means
                          > that the "everything is good" ideal is equally in error. Someone
                          once
                          > said that nothing is good or evil but that our thinking makes it so
                          > (yes, it was a Gnostic ;)).

                          I would more agree with the latter. Everything isn't good as much as
                          everything isn't bad. I think that was the point I was trying to
                          make. When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
                          illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                          not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                          saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                          former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                          readily than the latter. Acceptance, love and compassion are things
                          of tremendous importance and value especially in this day and age,
                          are more easily assimilated into being than seeing things as flawed
                          or in error in my opinion. Humanity seeks to "fix" things that are
                          considered "flawed" or in "error". Our track record in judging what
                          is messed up or not isn't exactly the best if you catch my drift. I
                          don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love, tolerance and
                          compassion which by their very nature don't concern themselves with
                          the flaws and errors that seemingly exist from a perspective that
                          roots out love, compassion and tolerance in their thinking. I can see
                          that these are not valued from the perspective here when I get
                          comments from you and others that ideas based upon love, acceptance
                          and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and the like. Like
                          these are "bad" things. I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
                          are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                          their belief in what they consider "right". Fixing what they consider
                          as flawed and in error. Rose colored glasses are better than blood
                          stained ones anyday.

                          This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a matter
                          of perspective. It isn't as objective as many people think it is. You
                          don't agree? That is why I question every path when it seems to me
                          that people are so married to one idea over all others. From what I
                          see here, Gnosticism isn't much different in this regard. Like I have
                          said a bunch of times already, truth isn't a matter of right and
                          wrong, good or bad, up or down, left or right. All things are part of
                          what is true. It is more about acceptance and tolerance than anything
                          else in my opinion.

                          >
                          > Let me post this again since I don't think it hit home....
                          >
                          > "Therefore they have introduced other types of explination, some
                          > saying that it is according to providence that the things which
                          exist
                          > have thier being. These are the people who observe the stability
                          and
                          > the conformity of the movement of creation. Others say that it is
                          > something alien. These are the people who observe the diversity and
                          > the lawlessness and the evil of the powers. Others say that the
                          > things which exist are what is destined to happen. These are the
                          > people who were occupied with this matter. Others that it is
                          > something in accordance with nature. Others say that it is self
                          > existent. The majority, however, all who have reached as far as the
                          > visible elements, do not know anything more than them."

                          No. It hit home. I would agree with that and it is why I say that "I
                          don't know shit". Compared to what there is to know, I don't. Neither
                          does anyone here. I give that the respect that it deserves. Doesn't
                          mean that I know nothing as much as it means that I have much to
                          learn. Much to remember. So do we all.


                          > The difference between the Gnostic "flaw" and the New Age rose
                          > colored glasses? Well the difference is that we make our mistake
                          > conciously rather than out of ignorace or the pathological need to
                          > feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the dual nature necessary for time
                          > to exist. We do it for the sake of description. However, that isn't
                          > the problem. The fact is, until you know what Gnostics mean by the
                          > things they say, you don't really know if you agree or disagree,
                          nor
                          > how to state what is right or wrong about it. The thing is, you are
                          > still doing so. The word for this behavior is "presumption", and
                          many
                          > people find it annoying. I will be patient, as you have asked of
                          us,
                          > but don't think that "patience" is the same as letting you off the
                          > hook where critical thinking is concerned.

                          My thinking about what is being said in here is critical. I'll try to
                          be more clear if and when I decide to post anything in here again.
                          I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone.

                          > If you "don't know shit", then that is about what the "insights"
                          you offer are worth.

                          I explained what I meant by that statement above so it should be
                          clearer to understand now.

                          > That doesn't mean that they may not be true, they
                          > just haven't flowered into true cogniscence yet. Hold on to them,
                          > test them, and after you _really_ know what we are talking about
                          see
                          > if they stand up to what you may learn here. We also believe we
                          have
                          > some insights as to where to find truth, and how to come to know
                          > it.... and it has much to do with flaw and error (at least in an
                          > allegorical sense). To add to that, there are some here who know
                          > thier "shit" pretty well.

                          I have said many times that you all "know" as much as anyone when it
                          comes to what is true. And all paths eventually lead to truth. You
                          know well what you know but compared to what there is to know,
                          well.....each of us doesn't know much. That isn't presumption. It is
                          truth.


                          > I hope you are able to take this in the light it is meant. I am
                          > giving you a hard time, but it is not meant in an angry manner at
                          > all. I think the fact is that there are a few basic principles to
                          > Gnosticism that may still be a little foggy to you, let alone the
                          > deep stuff for now. Yes, there is a great deal of study that is
                          going
                          > to be involved if you wish to have some understanding of Gnosticism
                          > (whether or not you decide you agre with it), and you stated that
                          you
                          > are in fact curious.

                          I am not at all irritated and have read a bunch of Gnostic "stuff"
                          already. I am still curious. The one item that impresses me the most
                          is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but open
                          to too much interpretation by the reader. Words taken out of context
                          lends itself to much confusion in my opinion. Reminds me of what
                          fundamentalist Christianity does to support ideas that the original
                          teachings weren't meant to portray.

                          > Any true esoteic path is going to be blood sweat
                          > and tears, expect some work and some concepts that had not
                          previously
                          > hit you. This is a continual process, and any worth while esoteric
                          > path is a tremendous amount of work.

                          So true. I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                          exactly as you say. I have shared much with you in this post and
                          hopefully now you understand me and my "contradictory" nature a bit
                          more. Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                          problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                          haven't you?

                          peace be with you,
                          play
                        • pmcvflag
                          Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming from more clear, and that is quite helpful. To deal with some specific points you raise....
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 6, 2002
                            Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming from
                            more clear, and that is quite helpful.

                            To deal with some specific points you raise....

                            >When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
                            illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                            not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                            saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                            former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                            readily than the latter.<

                            I see two problems that present themselves to the Gnostic perspective
                            here. One is a logical flaw called "non sequitor" (which means "it
                            doesn't follow"). Whether or not things are "as it shood be" is not
                            necessarily relevent to whether or not there is a flaw. A flaw can be
                            intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would make
                            the notion of "as it should be" flawed in and of itself
                            since "should" could be error from the getgo. The next one is
                            concerning "God". You are assuming we believe in one to make this
                            statement.

                            >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous importance
                            and value especially in this day and age, are more easily assimilated
                            into being than seeing things as flawed or in error in my opinion.<

                            Once again, non sequitor. The notion of flaw in no way implies a lack
                            of love or compassion. However, love, like all other things you can
                            name, applies to the field of time rather than to infinity.

                            >I don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love<

                            I don't "trust" period (as far as philosophical points are
                            concerned). "Trust" is another way of saying "believe" or "have faith
                            in". The point is, that is "pistic" not "gnostic". We don't seek
                            to "believe", we seek to "know". I know that love and compassion are
                            very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis, they
                            are also limited.

                            >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when I
                            get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
                            acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and the
                            like.<

                            No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject of
                            love and compassion in esoteric practice. What is "rose colored" is
                            the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and that
                            we should float along being guided by it to the point of excluding
                            critical thought, that we should simply "trust" our hearts and not
                            stop to think about it. If you have been following my discussion with
                            Wilbro you may have noticed that I outlined the function of "Logos"
                            and "Sophia" in a sort of Jungian manner.... well that applies here
                            as well.

                            >I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
                            are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                            their belief in what they consider "right". Rose colored glasses are
                            better than blood stained ones anyday.<

                            Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case then
                            thier hate is every bit as important as your love, and even
                            preferable in some circumstances. Beyond love and hate is the true
                            repose of the spirit. You see, those rose colored glasses are one and
                            the same as the blood stained ones. The eyes of the spirit need no
                            glasses at all.

                            >All things are part of what is true.<

                            Only when talking about worldly perception. Remember the post from
                            the Tripartite tractate? "The majority, however, all who have reached
                            as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than them."
                            The "truth" you keep mentioning is one that is dependant on the
                            visible elements, as is "love", and "acceptance". All these things
                            that exist as "part of what is true", no longer exist in what is
                            really True.

                            >This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a matter
                            of perspective.<

                            Only when looked at from somewhere that has "perspective", i.e. the
                            world of the "visible elements".

                            >And all paths eventually lead to truth.<

                            Demonstrate this. I doubt it seriously.

                            >The one item that impresses me the most
                            is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but open
                            to too much interpretation by the reader.<

                            It is also debatable as to whether Thomas is in fact "Gnostic".

                            >I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                            exactly as you say.<

                            Hmmm, except I didn't say the "inner path", I said the "esoteric
                            path", there is a difference.

                            >Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                            problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                            haven't you?<

                            There is a difference between intentional contradiction for the sake
                            of illustration (such as we see at the biginning of the tripartite
                            tractate), and idealogical inconsistancy. Once again, The "Gnostic"
                            validity of Thomas is open to debate.

                            I do think though, that we may be closer to understanding each other.

                            PMCV
                          • play_nice_now
                            ... from ... perspective ... be ... make ... I know what non-sequior is. Spiritual concepts are filled with them. Even Gnostic ones my friend. OK I can accept
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 6, 2002
                              --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                              > Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming
                              from
                              > more clear, and that is quite helpful.
                              >
                              > To deal with some specific points you raise....
                              >
                              > >When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
                              > illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                              > not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                              > saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                              > former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                              > readily than the latter.<
                              >
                              > I see two problems that present themselves to the Gnostic
                              perspective
                              > here. One is a logical flaw called "non sequitor" (which means "it
                              > doesn't follow"). Whether or not things are "as it shood be" is not
                              > necessarily relevent to whether or not there is a flaw. A flaw can
                              be
                              > intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would
                              make
                              > the notion of "as it should be" flawed in and of itself
                              > since "should" could be error from the getgo.

                              I know what non-sequior is. Spiritual concepts are filled with them.
                              Even Gnostic ones my friend. OK I can accept that as strictly a
                              gnostic perspective. But I can't accept that as absolute truth, I'm
                              sorry.

                              > The next one is
                              > concerning "God". You are assuming we believe in one to make this
                              > statement.

                              Well, maybe the word "believe" isn't the correct one to use.
                              Gnostics "know" there is one. Why do I say that? Read the Gospel of
                              Truth. Who is the Father? What is meant by "This is the manifestation
                              of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons. He revealed his hidden
                              self and explained it. For who is it who exists if it is not the
                              Father himself? All the spaces are his emanations."

                              Maybe this might be a good time for a clarification of terms? Who is
                              the Father? What exactly about himself did he explain to his Aeons?
                              Where are his spaces?

                              >
                              > >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous
                              importance
                              > and value especially in this day and age, are more easily
                              assimilated
                              > into being than seeing things as flawed or in error in my opinion.<
                              >
                              > Once again, non sequitor. The notion of flaw in no way implies a
                              lack
                              > of love or compassion.

                              You need examples?

                              > However, love, like all other things you can
                              > name, applies to the field of time rather than to infinity.

                              Love is also quite timeless and infinite in many ways. Do you
                              understand what I mean by that?

                              >
                              > >I don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love<
                              >
                              > I don't "trust" period (as far as philosophical points are
                              > concerned). "Trust" is another way of saying "believe" or "have
                              faith
                              > in".

                              Not really. You trust what you know even if it is philosophical,
                              don't you?

                              > The point is, that is "pistic" not "gnostic". We don't seek
                              > to "believe", we seek to "know". I know that love and compassion
                              are
                              > very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis,
                              they
                              > are also limited.

                              What isn't limited? Pistic or Gnostic. Even knowledge has its limits.
                              However, we are seeking to know and that is more valuable, even for
                              me than to trust or believe in something blindly.


                              > >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when
                              I
                              > get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
                              > acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and
                              the
                              > like.<
                              >
                              > No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject
                              of
                              > love and compassion in esoteric practice.

                              Can I join?

                              > What is "rose colored" is
                              > the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and
                              that
                              > we should float along being guided by it to the point of excluding
                              > critical thought, that we should simply "trust" our hearts and not
                              > stop to think about it. If you have been following my discussion
                              with
                              > Wilbro you may have noticed that I outlined the function of "Logos"
                              > and "Sophia" in a sort of Jungian manner.... well that applies here
                              > as well.

                              I'm with that and agree with you completely. *smiles*

                              > >I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
                              > are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                              > their belief in what they consider "right". Rose colored glasses
                              are
                              > better than blood stained ones anyday.<
                              >
                              > Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case
                              then
                              > thier hate is every bit as important as your love, and even
                              > preferable in some circumstances. Beyond love and hate is the true
                              > repose of the spirit. You see, those rose colored glasses are one
                              and
                              > the same as the blood stained ones. The eyes of the spirit need no
                              > glasses at all.


                              So true and great point.


                              >
                              > >All things are part of what is true.<
                              >
                              > Only when talking about worldly perception. Remember the post from
                              > the Tripartite tractate? "The majority, however, all who have
                              reached
                              > as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than
                              them."
                              > The "truth" you keep mentioning is one that is dependant on the
                              > visible elements, as is "love", and "acceptance". All these things
                              > that exist as "part of what is true", no longer exist in what is
                              > really True.

                              Not really CV. I can't get into this right now because I'm running
                              out of time. But we should get back to it.


                              >
                              > >This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a
                              matter
                              > of perspective.<
                              >
                              > Only when looked at from somewhere that has "perspective", i.e. the
                              > world of the "visible elements".

                              True. Perspective is fragments of the All. or sort of anyway.

                              >
                              > >And all paths eventually lead to truth.<
                              >
                              > Demonstrate this. I doubt it seriously.

                              All paths are the truth. Just by reason that they are paths that are
                              being taken. They exist and are therefore valid from the perspective
                              of the All.


                              >
                              > >The one item that impresses me the most
                              > is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but
                              open
                              > to too much interpretation by the reader.<
                              >
                              > It is also debatable as to whether Thomas is in fact "Gnostic".

                              I could see why.


                              >
                              > >I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                              > exactly as you say.<
                              >
                              > Hmmm, except I didn't say the "inner path", I said the "esoteric
                              > path", there is a difference.

                              Excuse me. Yes you are correct. There is a big difference.


                              >
                              > >Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                              > problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                              > haven't you?<
                              >
                              > There is a difference between intentional contradiction for the
                              sake
                              > of illustration (such as we see at the biginning of the tripartite
                              > tractate), and idealogical inconsistancy. Once again, The "Gnostic"
                              > validity of Thomas is open to debate.
                              >
                              > I do think though, that we may be closer to understanding each
                              other.

                              so do I CV. So do I.

                              Thanks,
                              Al
                              >
                              > PMCV
                            • pmcvflag
                              Now we are getting to some meaty bits Play. ... Even Gnostic ones my friend. OK I can accept that as strictly a gnostic perspective. But I can t accept that as
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 6, 2002
                                Now we are getting to some meaty bits Play.

                                >I know what non-sequior is. Spiritual concepts are filled with them.
                                Even Gnostic ones my friend. OK I can accept that as strictly a
                                gnostic perspective. But I can't accept that as absolute truth, I'm
                                sorry.<

                                Now you're talking. This is the kind of response I can respect. You
                                have stated that you get the point, and that you disagree with it.
                                Good man. Anyways, I'm sure you are right that there are some
                                examples here and there in Gnostic scripture of "non-sequitor", but
                                generally speaking it is something that Gnosticism takes great pains
                                to avoid (being a classical philosophy and all). In fact, it is this
                                very point that to some extent the cosmology of Gnosticism grows
                                from. Perhaps you can point out some past Gnostic mistakes of this
                                sort?

                                >Gnostics "know" there is one (a god). Why do I say that? Read the
                                Gospel of Truth. Who is the Father? What is meant by "This is the
                                manifestation of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons. He
                                revealed his hidden self and explained it. For who is it who exists
                                if it is not the Father himself? All the spaces are his emanations."<

                                You've read this passage overly literally if you think it is talking
                                about "God" in the normal meaning of the word. This is why I have
                                stressed familiarization with certain Gnostic concepts before really
                                stating which ones you are with and which ones you don't. However,
                                your next question is a good segue for that discussion.

                                >Maybe this might be a good time for a clarification of terms? Who is
                                the Father? What exactly about himself did he explain to his Aeons?
                                Where are his spaces?<

                                That "Father" is the "Image", the reflection of the Infinite. It is
                                from the image that the emanations proceed. The emanations are
                                constructs of our capacity to understand the realms of existance that
                                we percieve as the Platonic base existantial realms where the "Forms"
                                are expressed (in other words, areas of lessor division from the
                                unity of the image, which is a reflection of the lack of being that
                                is the Prime Source). The "explination to the Aeons" is revelation of
                                the reflection as WE proceed to greater understanding of the process
                                (the Gnostic experience of the Pleroma)

                                Thus, all these terms that look like the pistic Christian lingo are
                                allegories, not literal realities, in the Gnostic meaning. When it
                                says "God is Good" it means that true perfection is in the unity
                                beyond the field of opposites, and it diminishes with the movement
                                away from the unity.

                                Lets deal with the Gospel of Truth for a second. It is largely a
                                Valintinian work, so we can temper it's meaning to a Valintinian
                                interperater with another Valintinian work (we must be careful not to
                                say "this is what Gnostics believed" from the outline of a single
                                sect, that would be false... and we should avoid drawing on another
                                sect's works to fill in). Take a look at the second paragraph in "A
                                Valintinian Exposition", this should make clear the "Image" aspect I
                                was talking about. There is a First father that is ambiguous, and the
                                second Father, who is the Son and the source of the All. Then, if you
                                look over at the first part of the Tripartite Tractate (another
                                Valintinian work), it will make clear how all of this is allegory, a
                                means of conceptualization rather than a literal reality (also notice
                                the repeating phrase "I for my part call it..." in a Valintinian
                                Exposition)

                                >Love is also quite timeless and infinite in many ways. Do you
                                understand what I mean by that?<

                                Yes, I understand your intent, but I'm not sure you understand what I
                                mean by "infinite".

                                >You trust what you know even if it is philosophical,
                                don't you?<

                                No, I proceed with assumption for practical reasons only. I don't
                                trust my perception, I don't trust my philosophy, I don't
                                trust "God". The one thing I "trust" is that my spiritual
                                understanding is based on a methodology that is as sound as one can
                                get in this world... which is not to say perfect or "trustable". My
                                statements concerning my grasp of "truth", what I "know" (Gnosis),
                                must be understood to refer to relative degree, not absolute
                                attainment.

                                >All paths are the truth. Just by reason that they are paths that are
                                being taken. They exist and are therefore valid from the perspective
                                of the All.<

                                You still haven't demonstrated this though. Why should I believe all
                                paths are equal in validity? Do all roads _really_ lead to Rome?
                                nope! Why should I believe that ignorance is equal to knowledge, or
                                that matter is equal to spirit? If there is such a thing as "truth"
                                (which implicitly contains the notion of accuracy vs error) then
                                there is also such a thing as being closer to or farther from it.
                                Some paths promote ignorance, they discourage people from looking
                                inward, they are materialistic, aspiritual, and even harmful. A
                                society exhibits the collective neurosis of it's constituency. So, a
                                path (being a social creation as it is) can be lazy, greedy, hateful,
                                ignorant, silly, addictive, loving, intellegent, prideful, or any
                                other failing or strength you can apply to an individual. No right or
                                wrong? Maybe (though I would debate that), there still seems to
                                be "better".

                                Here is another thought. In spite of all our differences there are
                                also areas that are generalities to all of humanity. This collective
                                subconcious denies individual perspective as anything more than
                                ornament, and deals with that universal humanity... the area we are
                                all the same. For all paths to be equally valid, they would have to
                                be demonstratable as not only comparatively similar on this front (as
                                many paths, though not all, do indeed demonstrate), but also as
                                having equally positive effect (since spirituality is initiated
                                partly from the individual's ability to deal with this connection on
                                a more concious level). I would challenge you to demonstrate this
                                principle as it relates to a comparative study of silopsism vs the
                                Pentecostal church vs science.... and the way they define "reality".
                                If you pull that off I will be impressed, and you will have convinced
                                me of your point.

                                PMCV
                              • play_nice_now
                                ... *smiles* Did you have any doubt that this was going to happen? ... them. ... pains ... this ... OK. In the Tripartite Tractate: Not one of the names which
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 7, 2002
                                  --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > Now we are getting to some meaty bits Play.

                                  *smiles* Did you have any doubt that this was going to happen?


                                  > >I know what non-sequior is. Spiritual concepts are filled with
                                  them.
                                  > Even Gnostic ones my friend. OK I can accept that as strictly a
                                  > gnostic perspective. But I can't accept that as absolute truth, I'm
                                  > sorry.<
                                  >
                                  > Now you're talking. This is the kind of response I can respect. You
                                  > have stated that you get the point, and that you disagree with it.
                                  > Good man. Anyways, I'm sure you are right that there are some
                                  > examples here and there in Gnostic scripture of "non-sequitor", but
                                  > generally speaking it is something that Gnosticism takes great
                                  pains
                                  > to avoid (being a classical philosophy and all). In fact, it is
                                  this
                                  > very point that to some extent the cosmology of Gnosticism grows
                                  > from. Perhaps you can point out some past Gnostic mistakes of this
                                  > sort?

                                  OK. In the Tripartite Tractate:

                                  "Not one of the names which are conceived or spoken, seen or grasped -
                                  not one of them applies to him, even though they are exceedingly
                                  glorious, magnifying and honored. However, it is possible to utter
                                  these names for his glory and honor, in accordance with the capacity
                                  of each of those who give him glory."

                                  It doesn't follow that if names can't be conceived or spoken that
                                  they can still be uttered.

                                  and:

                                  "the form of the formless,
                                  the body of the bodiless,
                                  the face of the invisible,
                                  the word of the unutterable, "

                                  C'mon. If I wrote this, you would get annoyed.

                                  There are more but this is all I have time for right now.

                                  > >Gnostics "know" there is one (a god). Why do I say that? Read the
                                  > Gospel of Truth. Who is the Father? What is meant by "This is the
                                  > manifestation of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons. He
                                  > revealed his hidden self and explained it. For who is it who exists
                                  > if it is not the Father himself? All the spaces are his
                                  emanations."<
                                  >
                                  > You've read this passage overly literally if you think it is
                                  talking
                                  > about "God" in the normal meaning of the word.

                                  That is where you misunderstand me. I don't view "God" in the normal
                                  meaning of the word. When I talk about "It" God is nothing akin to
                                  what fundamentalists say IT is. Unfortunatel, the word "God" was used
                                  too much by others that it now has a negative stigma attached to IT
                                  that just turns people off. But that is not the God of which I speak.

                                  > This is why I have
                                  > stressed familiarization with certain Gnostic concepts before
                                  really
                                  > stating which ones you are with and which ones you don't. However,
                                  > your next question is a good segue for that discussion.
                                  >
                                  > >Maybe this might be a good time for a clarification of terms? Who
                                  is
                                  > the Father? What exactly about himself did he explain to his Aeons?
                                  > Where are his spaces?<
                                  >
                                  > That "Father" is the "Image", the reflection of the Infinite. It is
                                  > from the image that the emanations proceed. The emanations are
                                  > constructs of our capacity to understand the realms of existance
                                  that
                                  > we percieve as the Platonic base existantial realms where
                                  the "Forms"
                                  > are expressed (in other words, areas of lessor division from the
                                  > unity of the image, which is a reflection of the lack of being that
                                  > is the Prime Source). The "explination to the Aeons" is revelation
                                  of
                                  > the reflection as WE proceed to greater understanding of the
                                  process
                                  > (the Gnostic experience of the Pleroma)

                                  I understand. But I also take it to mean much more than that. These
                                  emanations of image also take form into a physical "reality" of which
                                  we now find ourselves immersed. What you say above is true but there
                                  is also this physical component of matter and form that is a part of
                                  what is being eminated from the "Father" which is unity. I posit that
                                  this physical existence is a part of what the infinite has created,
                                  however finite, flawed or in error it may seem. It then follows that
                                  if that is the case, then it has some value and is valid. No matter
                                  what the form or station in life.

                                  >
                                  > Thus, all these terms that look like the pistic Christian lingo are
                                  > allegories, not literal realities, in the Gnostic meaning. When it
                                  > says "God is Good" it means that true perfection is in the unity
                                  > beyond the field of opposites, and it diminishes with the movement
                                  > away from the unity.

                                  That is so true.


                                  > Lets deal with the Gospel of Truth for a second. It is largely a
                                  > Valintinian work, so we can temper it's meaning to a Valintinian
                                  > interperater with another Valintinian work (we must be careful not
                                  to
                                  > say "this is what Gnostics believed" from the outline of a single
                                  > sect, that would be false... and we should avoid drawing on another
                                  > sect's works to fill in). Take a look at the second paragraph in "A
                                  > Valintinian Exposition", this should make clear the "Image" aspect
                                  I
                                  > was talking about. There is a First father that is ambiguous, and
                                  the
                                  > second Father, who is the Son and the source of the All. Then, if
                                  you
                                  > look over at the first part of the Tripartite Tractate (another
                                  > Valintinian work), it will make clear how all of this is allegory,
                                  a
                                  > means of conceptualization rather than a literal reality (also
                                  notice
                                  > the repeating phrase "I for my part call it..." in a Valintinian
                                  > Exposition)

                                  OK, I see what you are talking about.


                                  > >Love is also quite timeless and infinite in many ways. Do you
                                  > understand what I mean by that?<
                                  >
                                  > Yes, I understand your intent, but I'm not sure you understand what
                                  I
                                  > mean by "infinite".

                                  Maybe it is time for another clarification of terms, eh?


                                  > >You trust what you know even if it is philosophical,
                                  > don't you?<
                                  >
                                  > No, I proceed with assumption for practical reasons only. I don't
                                  > trust my perception, I don't trust my philosophy, I don't
                                  > trust "God". The one thing I "trust" is that my spiritual
                                  > understanding is based on a methodology that is as sound as one can
                                  > get in this world... which is not to say perfect or "trustable". My
                                  > statements concerning my grasp of "truth", what I "know" (Gnosis),
                                  > must be understood to refer to relative degree, not absolute
                                  > attainment.

                                  Trust, or anything else for that matter in this existence, is rarely
                                  absolute. I'm talking about to a relative degree. I'm afraid that
                                  will have to suffice for us in this life. But, from that perspective,
                                  I take it that you do trust what you have come to know. That is what
                                  I'm talking about.


                                  > >All paths are the truth. Just by reason that they are paths that
                                  are
                                  > being taken. They exist and are therefore valid from the
                                  perspective
                                  > of the All.<
                                  >
                                  > You still haven't demonstrated this though. Why should I believe
                                  all
                                  > paths are equal in validity?

                                  OK. Because I exist and have my truth, you exist and have your truth
                                  and everyone and everything else exists and has it's truth, it
                                  follows, whether we agree with these truths or not, that these truths
                                  do in fact exist and are therefore her, now and valid. We are
                                  products or emanations of the "Father's" word which is to say
                                  emanations of his total truth. Because we are "here", we are a part
                                  of "his" word. "His" truth which can't be denied.

                                  > Do all roads _really_ lead to Rome?
                                  > nope! Why should I believe that ignorance is equal to knowledge, or
                                  > that matter is equal to spirit?

                                  I'm not looking at it that way. Not a matter of equality. It is a
                                  matter of what is and isn't. Fact is ignorance, whether equal or not
                                  is still part of truth since it does, in fact, exist.


                                  > If there is such a thing as "truth"
                                  > (which implicitly contains the notion of accuracy vs error) then
                                  > there is also such a thing as being closer to or farther from it.

                                  Only from our limited perspective is that true. But truth, the truth
                                  itself has its own say and is its own entity. It doesn't
                                  concern "itself" with who is closer or further from it. It is what it
                                  is. So again. I'm sorry but I can't agree with that.

                                  > Some paths promote ignorance, they discourage people from looking
                                  > inward, they are materialistic, aspiritual, and even harmful. A
                                  > society exhibits the collective neurosis of it's constituency. So,
                                  a
                                  > path (being a social creation as it is) can be lazy, greedy,
                                  hateful,
                                  > ignorant, silly, addictive, loving, intellegent, prideful, or any
                                  > other failing or strength you can apply to an individual. No right
                                  or
                                  > wrong? Maybe (though I would debate that), there still seems to
                                  > be "better".

                                  These are judgements of truth. But the truth is that these paths do
                                  exist and are therefore a part of what is truth. If we can accept
                                  that all things emanate from one source, from the "Father" or from
                                  what the infinite, it follows that what we consider bad or good,
                                  wrong or right, error and perfection or whatever came from this one
                                  source and therefore can't help but to lead back to it.


                                  > Here is another thought. In spite of all our differences there are
                                  > also areas that are generalities to all of humanity. This
                                  collective
                                  > subconcious denies individual perspective as anything more than
                                  > ornament, and deals with that universal humanity... the area we are
                                  > all the same. For all paths to be equally valid, they would have to
                                  > be demonstratable as not only comparatively similar on this front
                                  (as
                                  > many paths, though not all, do indeed demonstrate), but also as
                                  > having equally positive effect (since spirituality is initiated
                                  > partly from the individual's ability to deal with this connection
                                  on
                                  > a more concious level). I would challenge you to demonstrate this
                                  > principle as it relates to a comparative study of silopsism vs the
                                  > Pentecostal church vs science.... and the way they
                                  define "reality".
                                  > If you pull that off I will be impressed, and you will have
                                  convinced
                                  > me of your point.

                                  I think we are getting bogged down in terms of what is valid. The way
                                  I'm looking at this, if it "is" then it is valid regardless of what
                                  we think about it. I'm not placing judgement or comparing anyone or
                                  anything here. If it "is" it must have come from the prime source
                                  directly or indirectly since all things that "are" come from that one
                                  thought. In that sense they are valid. I'm careful to say it this way
                                  to avoid judgeing what is right or wrong. Another way of saying this
                                  is that the one truth is broken up into all sorts of truths which
                                  makes the one truth all encompassing. In its own "image". No matter
                                  which way you look at this, from the top down or from the bottom up
                                  it leads to and from the prime source. This is who I refer to
                                  as "God". The one God. Not Demiurge. The All are with the "Father"
                                  and do not exist for themselves. The All exist for and with him, even
                                  in the physical sense, for physicality can also be allegory to what
                                  is infinite. Nothing is far from the "Father" if it is all in Him.


                                  peace,
                                  play
                                • pmcvflag
                                  ... they can still be uttered.
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 7, 2002
                                    >It doesn't follow that if names can't be conceived or spoken that
                                    they can still be uttered.<

                                    Well, technically neither of these examples are non sequitor Play.
                                    They are a contention of our need to give a name to something in
                                    spite of the innacuracy that this causes.

                                    >C'mon. If I wrote this, you would get annoyed.<

                                    No Play, if you had said this then it would be clear that you were
                                    cogniscent of the allagory, rather than being literal. In other
                                    words, the issue here has been that you _appear_ to be speaking from
                                    the opposite direction as the examples you give. Now, if it is part
                                    of your point here with these examples to show that you are indeed
                                    aware if this, and that your belief in the connection of "love" to
                                    the infinite (for example) is only a metaphore rather than literal,
                                    then I would say "well why didn't you say so in the first place!"...
                                    I mean, the whole point of what I have said to you is that you seem
                                    to be very literal minded in interpreting some things that are not
                                    intended that way. For instance, it has seemed that you believed the
                                    Aeons are a literal accurate cosmological structure. If this is not
                                    the case, then we are in agreement.

                                    >I don't view "God" in the normal meaning of the word.<

                                    The question is whether or not you view "God" as a literal
                                    providential force, or as a construct of ours for the sake of dealing
                                    with higher philosophical subjects.

                                    >I understand. But I also take it to mean much more than that. These
                                    emanations of image also take form into a physical "reality" of which
                                    we now find ourselves immersed.<

                                    I understand that you believe that, however it isn't what the author
                                    of this book believed. Instead the Aeons (to the Gnostic writer) are
                                    seperated from physicality by a limit placed in the eighth (or ninth
                                    depending on the source) realm of the Archons (sometimes this is
                                    Saboath, others it is Low Sophia). It is beneath that limit that
                                    Yaldabaoth works.

                                    >I posit that this physical existence is a part of what the infinite
                                    has created<

                                    The question however is whether or not the Infinite "created"
                                    anything. If it did then it isn't really infinite since it has
                                    motive.... and motive is a finite action.

                                    >Maybe it is time for another clarification of terms, eh?<

                                    Ok, think of it this way.... there can be two meanings of the
                                    term "infinite". One is the general principle of physical un-
                                    measurability. The universe for instance may be "infinite" in this
                                    way, since it has no end (at least that we are able to positively
                                    discern) right?. This lack of ends gives it sort of an eternal
                                    quality. The same is true of numbers, as far as we know they don't
                                    end, they are "infinite" in that sense. However, this is only
                                    physical "infinity" not pure philosophical "Infinity". This second
                                    form of Infinity not only has no measurable ends, but no points of
                                    measurability anywhere. Numbers may go off into infinity, but
                                    wherever you are on that journey is still a finite point. No such
                                    thing exists in true, pure, infinity, since the existance of a finite
                                    point counters the absolute quality of the philsophical "form". Since
                                    all terms are finite concepts, we can only talk about pure infinity
                                    according to what it is not. Infinity isn't "big", because "big" is a
                                    thing right? This is what the biginning of the tripartite tractate is
                                    trying to say when it goes through that long list of negations, then
                                    saying that in reality God is not good, but we call it that because
                                    it gives honor to the concept.

                                    There is an implication here that I want to make clear. If we are
                                    talking about "part" of an infinity, we can only mean that physical
                                    infinity since the pure concept has no "parts"... no points of the
                                    finite to disrupt the pure form of the concept. This is the crux of
                                    our conversation in that the point you seemed to make, and the one
                                    that I was countering, is the notion of a "God" that has literal
                                    (rather than allegorical) attributes like "love". To Gnostics, such a
                                    conceptualization of "God" prevents one from being able to begin to
                                    gain that realization of pure philosophical infinity (which is partly
                                    what "Gnosis" is)

                                    Now, let me backtrack. This conversation started between you and
                                    Gerry primarily on the subject of anthropomorphization. The true
                                    question though is not whether you commit this fallacy (which we all
                                    must do), but whether you do it conciously, or if you believe it
                                    literally.

                                    >OK. Because I exist and have my truth, you exist and have your truth
                                    and everyone and everything else exists and has it's truth, it
                                    follows, whether we agree with these truths or not, that these truths
                                    do in fact exist and are therefore her, now and valid.<

                                    AH, so by "truth" you mean "realities" it seems. In that way yes, we
                                    all have our material existance. However, to the Gnostic those are
                                    not truth, on the contrary they are quite false.

                                    >We are products or emanations of the "Father's" word which is to say
                                    emanations of his total truth. Because we are "here", we are a part
                                    of "his" word. "His" truth which can't be denied.<

                                    Are we? The Gnostic cosmology certainly raises question about just
                                    what we are a part of.

                                    >I'm not looking at it that way. Not a matter of equality. It is a
                                    matter of what is and isn't. Fact is ignorance, whether equal or not
                                    is still part of truth since it does, in fact, exist.<

                                    That is assuming that "existance" is "truth". Unless the real truth
                                    is not found in existance, but in the pure philosophical infinity. So
                                    what "is" and "isn't" is not the truth.

                                    PMCV
                                  • ZELITCHENK
                                    2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between to believe and to know is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more details. What does
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 8, 2002
                                      2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to believe"
                                      and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more
                                      details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it mean - "to
                                      believe"? Where is difference?

                                      Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
                                      path"? What is it - "esoteric path"?

                                      --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                      > Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming
                                      from
                                      > more clear, and that is quite helpful.
                                      >
                                      > To deal with some specific points you raise....
                                      >
                                      > >When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
                                      > illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                                      > not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                                      > saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                                      > former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                                      > readily than the latter.<
                                      >
                                      > I see two problems that present themselves to the Gnostic
                                      perspective
                                      > here. One is a logical flaw called "non sequitor" (which means "it
                                      > doesn't follow"). Whether or not things are "as it shood be" is not
                                      > necessarily relevent to whether or not there is a flaw. A flaw can
                                      be
                                      > intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would
                                      make
                                      > the notion of "as it should be" flawed in and of itself
                                      > since "should" could be error from the getgo. The next one is
                                      > concerning "God". You are assuming we believe in one to make this
                                      > statement.
                                      >
                                      > >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous
                                      importance
                                      > and value especially in this day and age, are more easily
                                      assimilated
                                      > into being than seeing things as flawed or in error in my opinion.<
                                      >
                                      > Once again, non sequitor. The notion of flaw in no way implies a
                                      lack
                                      > of love or compassion. However, love, like all other things you can
                                      > name, applies to the field of time rather than to infinity.
                                      >
                                      > >I don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love<
                                      >
                                      > I don't "trust" period (as far as philosophical points are
                                      > concerned). "Trust" is another way of saying "believe" or "have
                                      faith
                                      > in". The point is, that is "pistic" not "gnostic". We don't seek
                                      > to "believe", we seek to "know". I know that love and compassion
                                      are
                                      > very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis,
                                      they
                                      > are also limited.
                                      >
                                      > >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when
                                      I
                                      > get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
                                      > acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and
                                      the
                                      > like.<
                                      >
                                      > No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject
                                      of
                                      > love and compassion in esoteric practice. What is "rose colored" is
                                      > the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and
                                      that
                                      > we should float along being guided by it to the point of excluding
                                      > critical thought, that we should simply "trust" our hearts and not
                                      > stop to think about it. If you have been following my discussion
                                      with
                                      > Wilbro you may have noticed that I outlined the function of "Logos"
                                      > and "Sophia" in a sort of Jungian manner.... well that applies here
                                      > as well.
                                      >
                                      > >I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
                                      > are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                                      > their belief in what they consider "right". Rose colored glasses
                                      are
                                      > better than blood stained ones anyday.<
                                      >
                                      > Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case
                                      then
                                      > thier hate is every bit as important as your love, and even
                                      > preferable in some circumstances. Beyond love and hate is the true
                                      > repose of the spirit. You see, those rose colored glasses are one
                                      and
                                      > the same as the blood stained ones. The eyes of the spirit need no
                                      > glasses at all.
                                      >
                                      > >All things are part of what is true.<
                                      >
                                      > Only when talking about worldly perception. Remember the post from
                                      > the Tripartite tractate? "The majority, however, all who have
                                      reached
                                      > as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than
                                      them."
                                      > The "truth" you keep mentioning is one that is dependant on the
                                      > visible elements, as is "love", and "acceptance". All these things
                                      > that exist as "part of what is true", no longer exist in what is
                                      > really True.
                                      >
                                      > >This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a
                                      matter
                                      > of perspective.<
                                      >
                                      > Only when looked at from somewhere that has "perspective", i.e. the
                                      > world of the "visible elements".
                                      >
                                      > >And all paths eventually lead to truth.<
                                      >
                                      > Demonstrate this. I doubt it seriously.
                                      >
                                      > >The one item that impresses me the most
                                      > is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but
                                      open
                                      > to too much interpretation by the reader.<
                                      >
                                      > It is also debatable as to whether Thomas is in fact "Gnostic".
                                      >
                                      > >I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                                      > exactly as you say.<
                                      >
                                      > Hmmm, except I didn't say the "inner path", I said the "esoteric
                                      > path", there is a difference.
                                      >
                                      > >Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                                      > problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                                      > haven't you?<
                                      >
                                      > There is a difference between intentional contradiction for the
                                      sake
                                      > of illustration (such as we see at the biginning of the tripartite
                                      > tractate), and idealogical inconsistancy. Once again, The "Gnostic"
                                      > validity of Thomas is open to debate.
                                      >
                                      > I do think though, that we may be closer to understanding each
                                      other.
                                      >
                                      > PMCV
                                    • hey_market
                                      I m stepping into this conversation late, and haven t read all the threads, so I may be repeating thing or speaking out of turn here. For what it s worth Play,
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jun 8, 2002
                                        I'm stepping into this conversation late, and haven't read all the
                                        threads, so I may be repeating thing or speaking out of turn here.

                                        For what it's worth Play, I will note that it's a bit simplistic to
                                        even suppose that love and suicide bombers don't mix, since the
                                        latter certainly have rose-tinted glasses (godly and saintly even, at
                                        least in their estimation), even rosier than most I'd warrant, since
                                        they so adamantly believe they can take action to realize a world of
                                        perfection--a world they love--one that would exsist if they could
                                        only blow up or otherwise eradicate all of the enemies of their
                                        perfect world.

                                        And those enemies are located in the mind as much as anywhere else,
                                        particularly in minds that refuse to see that their world is as
                                        flawed as the next person's.

                                        It was Shakespeare who wrote that "nothing is, but thinking makes it
                                        so." And given your appreciation for this line, then you might see
                                        how it applies not only to any conception of love, including a suiced
                                        bombers, but to any thoughts period.

                                        As such, how this little bit of wisdom plays out in this instance is
                                        that "nothing is love, but my thinking makes it so," or "nothing is
                                        good, but my thinking makes it so," and then invetably, "nothing is
                                        evil, but THEIR thinking makes it so." And yet, this thinking is not
                                        exclusively THEIR thinking, is it?

                                        How it Plays out for you is that, "nothing is bad, but THEIR thinking
                                        makes it so." So why don't they think about better things--the power
                                        of positive thinking?

                                        And yet look at the evidence of our thinking--even your own mind must
                                        contend with an unavoidable evil within its walls, even if only to
                                        contend with the thoughts of other. Even if only to say, "ah, that's
                                        evil over there and there and there, and here's goodness over here."

                                        You are compelled to be discerning and make distinctions, and these
                                        distinctions define your own definition of love.

                                        So why not discern love in a fully conscious fashion? Wouldn't this
                                        be a better love? A fuller love?

                                        So why pretend to remove such challenges to your notions of love,
                                        especially within a field of thought from which they cannot be
                                        removed, and in fact, must exist as the very material with which you
                                        scrape away to sculpt your cognitive statue of love?

                                        This isn't to say that you should welcome evil, but it can hardly be
                                        avoided, or rather, the archontic forces of evil can only be avoided
                                        via the highly difficult process of developing fuller awareness.
                                        Otherwise, without acknowledging this reality we'll bump into a lot
                                        of ostensibly evil things that will not only disappoint us, but worse
                                        still, keep us ignorant.

                                        Internal inconsistency is a hallmark of such a frame of mind,
                                        precisely because it is unwilling to confront and reconcile those
                                        things that exist BEYOND the thinking that makes them so--that is,
                                        the objective psychoid facts of reality vs. a personal psychological
                                        facts of mind.

                                        Those who do confront these realities enevitably come to realize that
                                        the good is never altogether good and the evil never altogether evil,
                                        at least in this world.

                                        Better to realize that sooner than later, so as to move beyond it
                                        sooner than later--to move to the fullness of which Gnostics speak.
                                        But the only way to do so is through uncompromising consciousness,
                                        regardless of the discomfort.


                                        --- In gnosticism2@y..., "play_nice_now" <stokedup@y...> wrote:
                                        > --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                        > > Hate to say it "Play Nice", but I'm forced to question your grasp
                                        > on
                                        > > the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements
                                        simply
                                        > > don't pan out.
                                        >
                                        > That is partly because I'm not explaining them clear enough and
                                        also
                                        > partly because this is a very difficult subject to present in an
                                        > absolute sense of the word as you well know.
                                        >
                                        > > I say this not to upset you, but to give you the
                                        > > opportunity to examine your statements a little more closely
                                        before
                                        > > you post them.
                                        >
                                        > I understand and examine my statements more closely than you think.
                                        >
                                        > > Gerry and Cari are completely justified in questioning
                                        > > the way you come accross.
                                        >
                                        > Of course they are. So are you and so am I.
                                        >
                                        > > However, let me base my points on the
                                        > > idealogical, for instance....
                                        > >
                                        > > If there is such a thing as the "Infinite" source, then you are
                                        > right
                                        > > to some extent to point out that the notion of a "flaw" is in
                                        error
                                        > > (since no opposites exist there). On the other hand it also means
                                        > > that the "everything is good" ideal is equally in error. Someone
                                        > once
                                        > > said that nothing is good or evil but that our thinking makes it
                                        so
                                        > > (yes, it was a Gnostic ;)).
                                        >
                                        > I would more agree with the latter. Everything isn't good as much
                                        as
                                        > everything isn't bad. I think that was the point I was trying to
                                        > make. When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more
                                        to
                                        > illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                                        > not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                                        > saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                                        > former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                                        > readily than the latter. Acceptance, love and compassion are things
                                        > of tremendous importance and value especially in this day and age,
                                        > are more easily assimilated into being than seeing things as flawed
                                        > or in error in my opinion. Humanity seeks to "fix" things that are
                                        > considered "flawed" or in "error". Our track record in judging what
                                        > is messed up or not isn't exactly the best if you catch my drift. I
                                        > don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love, tolerance and
                                        > compassion which by their very nature don't concern themselves with
                                        > the flaws and errors that seemingly exist from a perspective that
                                        > roots out love, compassion and tolerance in their thinking. I can
                                        see
                                        > that these are not valued from the perspective here when I get
                                        > comments from you and others that ideas based upon love, acceptance
                                        > and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and the like.
                                        Like
                                        > these are "bad" things. I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy
                                        ideas
                                        > are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                                        > their belief in what they consider "right". Fixing what they
                                        consider
                                        > as flawed and in error. Rose colored glasses are better than blood
                                        > stained ones anyday.
                                        >
                                        > This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a
                                        matter
                                        > of perspective. It isn't as objective as many people think it is.
                                        You
                                        > don't agree? That is why I question every path when it seems to me
                                        > that people are so married to one idea over all others. From what I
                                        > see here, Gnosticism isn't much different in this regard. Like I
                                        have
                                        > said a bunch of times already, truth isn't a matter of right and
                                        > wrong, good or bad, up or down, left or right. All things are part
                                        of
                                        > what is true. It is more about acceptance and tolerance than
                                        anything
                                        > else in my opinion.
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > Let me post this again since I don't think it hit home....
                                        > >
                                        > > "Therefore they have introduced other types of explination, some
                                        > > saying that it is according to providence that the things which
                                        > exist
                                        > > have thier being. These are the people who observe the stability
                                        > and
                                        > > the conformity of the movement of creation. Others say that it is
                                        > > something alien. These are the people who observe the diversity
                                        and
                                        > > the lawlessness and the evil of the powers. Others say that the
                                        > > things which exist are what is destined to happen. These are the
                                        > > people who were occupied with this matter. Others that it is
                                        > > something in accordance with nature. Others say that it is self
                                        > > existent. The majority, however, all who have reached as far as
                                        the
                                        > > visible elements, do not know anything more than them."
                                        >
                                        > No. It hit home. I would agree with that and it is why I say
                                        that "I
                                        > don't know shit". Compared to what there is to know, I don't.
                                        Neither
                                        > does anyone here. I give that the respect that it deserves. Doesn't
                                        > mean that I know nothing as much as it means that I have much to
                                        > learn. Much to remember. So do we all.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > The difference between the Gnostic "flaw" and the New Age rose
                                        > > colored glasses? Well the difference is that we make our mistake
                                        > > conciously rather than out of ignorace or the pathological need
                                        to
                                        > > feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the dual nature necessary for
                                        time
                                        > > to exist. We do it for the sake of description. However, that
                                        isn't
                                        > > the problem. The fact is, until you know what Gnostics mean by
                                        the
                                        > > things they say, you don't really know if you agree or disagree,
                                        > nor
                                        > > how to state what is right or wrong about it. The thing is, you
                                        are
                                        > > still doing so. The word for this behavior is "presumption", and
                                        > many
                                        > > people find it annoying. I will be patient, as you have asked of
                                        > us,
                                        > > but don't think that "patience" is the same as letting you off
                                        the
                                        > > hook where critical thinking is concerned.
                                        >
                                        > My thinking about what is being said in here is critical. I'll try
                                        to
                                        > be more clear if and when I decide to post anything in here again.
                                        > I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone.
                                        >
                                        > > If you "don't know shit", then that is about what the "insights"
                                        > you offer are worth.
                                        >
                                        > I explained what I meant by that statement above so it should be
                                        > clearer to understand now.
                                        >
                                        > > That doesn't mean that they may not be true, they
                                        > > just haven't flowered into true cogniscence yet. Hold on to them,
                                        > > test them, and after you _really_ know what we are talking about
                                        > see
                                        > > if they stand up to what you may learn here. We also believe we
                                        > have
                                        > > some insights as to where to find truth, and how to come to know
                                        > > it.... and it has much to do with flaw and error (at least in an
                                        > > allegorical sense). To add to that, there are some here who know
                                        > > thier "shit" pretty well.
                                        >
                                        > I have said many times that you all "know" as much as anyone when
                                        it
                                        > comes to what is true. And all paths eventually lead to truth. You
                                        > know well what you know but compared to what there is to know,
                                        > well.....each of us doesn't know much. That isn't presumption. It
                                        is
                                        > truth.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > I hope you are able to take this in the light it is meant. I am
                                        > > giving you a hard time, but it is not meant in an angry manner at
                                        > > all. I think the fact is that there are a few basic principles to
                                        > > Gnosticism that may still be a little foggy to you, let alone the
                                        > > deep stuff for now. Yes, there is a great deal of study that is
                                        > going
                                        > > to be involved if you wish to have some understanding of
                                        Gnosticism
                                        > > (whether or not you decide you agre with it), and you stated that
                                        > you
                                        > > are in fact curious.
                                        >
                                        > I am not at all irritated and have read a bunch of Gnostic "stuff"
                                        > already. I am still curious. The one item that impresses me the
                                        most
                                        > is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but
                                        open
                                        > to too much interpretation by the reader. Words taken out of
                                        context
                                        > lends itself to much confusion in my opinion. Reminds me of what
                                        > fundamentalist Christianity does to support ideas that the original
                                        > teachings weren't meant to portray.
                                        >
                                        > > Any true esoteic path is going to be blood sweat
                                        > > and tears, expect some work and some concepts that had not
                                        > previously
                                        > > hit you. This is a continual process, and any worth while
                                        esoteric
                                        > > path is a tremendous amount of work.
                                        >
                                        > So true. I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                                        > exactly as you say. I have shared much with you in this post and
                                        > hopefully now you understand me and my "contradictory" nature a bit
                                        > more. Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                                        > problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                                        > haven't you?
                                        >
                                        > peace be with you,
                                        > play
                                      • Rob Thompson
                                        I hate to butt in but is the difference to believe is something based on fact but still has a leap of faith involved, where to know is a idea based solely on
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jun 8, 2002

                                          I hate to butt in but is the difference to believe is something based on fact but still has a leap of faith involved, where to know is a idea based solely on fact or something that we can prove. From example... Fred believes the Gospel of Thomas to be the true word based on the idea that it is one of the oldest Christian documents, or I know the Gospel of Thomas is one of the oldest Christian documents.

                                          Rob

                                            ZELITCHENK <zelitchenk@...> wrote:

                                          2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to believe"
                                          and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more
                                          details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it mean - "to
                                          believe"? Where is difference?

                                          Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
                                          path"? What is it - "esoteric path"?

                                          --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                          > Ok Play, you do in fact make some areas of where you are comming
                                          from
                                          > more clear, and that is quite helpful.
                                          >
                                          > To deal with some specific points you raise....
                                          >
                                          > >When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
                                          > illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
                                          > not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
                                          > saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
                                          > former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
                                          > readily than the latter.<
                                          >
                                          > I see two problems that present themselves to the Gnostic
                                          perspective
                                          > here. One is a logical flaw called "non sequitor" (which means "it
                                          > doesn't follow"). Whether or not things are "as it shood be" is not
                                          > necessarily relevent to whether or not there is a flaw. A flaw can
                                          be
                                          > intentional. On the other hand, intent can be a flaw which would
                                          make
                                          > the notion of "as it should be" flawed in and of itself
                                          > since "should" could be error from the getgo. The next one is
                                          > concerning "God". You are assuming we believe in one to make this
                                          > statement.
                                          >
                                          > >Acceptance, love and compassion are things of tremendous
                                          importance
                                          > and value especially in this day and age, are more easily
                                          assimilated
                                          > into being than seeing things as flawed or in error in my opinion.<
                                          >
                                          > Once again, non sequitor. The notion of flaw in no way implies a
                                          lack
                                          > of love or compassion. However, love, like all other things you can
                                          > name, applies to the field of time rather than to infinity.
                                          >
                                          > >I don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love<
                                          >
                                          > I don't "trust" period (as far as philosophical points are
                                          > concerned). "Trust" is another way of saying "believe" or "have
                                          faith
                                          > in". The point is, that is "pistic" not "gnostic". We don't seek
                                          > to "believe", we seek to "know". I know that love and compassion
                                          are
                                          > very valuable, and can even be footsteps in the path to Gnosis,
                                          they
                                          > are also limited.
                                          >
                                          > >I can see that these are not valued from the perspective here when
                                          I
                                          > get comments from you and others that ideas based upon love,
                                          > acceptance and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and
                                          the
                                          > like.<
                                          >
                                          > No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject
                                          of
                                          > love and compassion in esoteric practice. What is "rose colored" is
                                          > the need to imply that that love is a matter of providence, and
                                          that
                                          > we should float along being guided by it to the point of excluding
                                          > critical thought, that we should simply "trust" our hearts and not
                                          > stop to think about it. If you have been following my discussion
                                          with
                                          > Wilbro you may have noticed that I outlined the function of "Logos"
                                          > and "Sophia" in a sort of Jungian manner.... well that applies here
                                          > as well.
                                          >
                                          > >I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
                                          > are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
                                          > their belief in what they consider "right". Rose colored glasses
                                          are
                                          > better than blood stained ones anyday.<
                                          >
                                          > Not if everything is "the way it should be". If that is the case
                                          then
                                          > thier hate is every bit as important as your love, and even
                                          > preferable in some circumstances. Beyond love and hate is the true
                                          > repose of the spirit. You see, those rose colored glasses are one
                                          and
                                          > the same as the blood stained ones. The eyes of the spirit need no
                                          > glasses at all.
                                          >
                                          > >All things are part of what is true.<
                                          >
                                          > Only when talking about worldly perception. Remember the post from
                                          > the Tripartite tractate? "The majority, however, all who have
                                          reached
                                          > as far as the visible elements, do not know anything more than
                                          them."
                                          > The "truth" you keep mentioning is one that is dependant on the
                                          > visible elements, as is "love", and "acceptance". All these things
                                          > that exist as "part of what is true", no longer exist in what is
                                          > really True.
                                          >
                                          > >This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a
                                          matter
                                          > of perspective.<
                                          >
                                          > Only when looked at from somewhere that has "perspective", i.e. the
                                          > world of the "visible elements".
                                          >
                                          > >And all paths eventually lead to truth.<
                                          >
                                          > Demonstrate this. I doubt it seriously.
                                          >
                                          > >The one item that impresses me the most
                                          > is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but
                                          open
                                          > to too much interpretation by the reader.<
                                          >
                                          > It is also debatable as to whether Thomas is in fact "Gnostic".
                                          >
                                          > >I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
                                          > exactly as you say.<
                                          >
                                          > Hmmm, except I didn't say the "inner path", I said the "esoteric
                                          > path", there is a difference.
                                          >
                                          > >Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
                                          > problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
                                          > haven't you?<
                                          >
                                          > There is a difference between intentional contradiction for the
                                          sake
                                          > of illustration (such as we see at the biginning of the tripartite
                                          > tractate), and idealogical inconsistancy. Once again, The "Gnostic"
                                          > validity of Thomas is open to debate.
                                          >
                                          > I do think though, that we may be closer to understanding each
                                          other.
                                          >
                                          > PMCV


                                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

                                        • pmcvflag
                                          Hey AZ, you ask... ... and to know is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more details. What does it mean - to know ? What does it mean - to
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jun 9, 2002
                                            Hey AZ, you ask...

                                            >2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to believe"
                                            and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more
                                            details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it mean - "to
                                            believe"? Where is difference?<

                                            In the Gnostic system, the difference between believing (pistis
                                            [faith]) and knowing "gnosis" is fundemental (after all, it
                                            is "Gnosticism" not "Pisticism")

                                            One "knows" through a system of experience and critical perspective.
                                            How for instance do you "know" that you are reading my message on a
                                            computer message board? Belief on the other hand is only necessary
                                            when we chose to maintain an idea despite the lack of enough evidence
                                            or logic to give us reason to hold the idea in question. It doesn't
                                            mean the belief is wrong, just that we draw a destinction on how the
                                            conclusion should be reached.

                                            >Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
                                            path"? What is it - "esoteric path"? <

                                            Esotericism literally referes to an initiatory process, though that
                                            may be expressed in many forms and is certainly an "inner" process as
                                            well. However, "inner path" is a very general destinction for any
                                            kind of self examination, whereas "esoteric" referes to a more
                                            specific and methodological approach, generally via a initiatory
                                            system (alchemy for instance, or Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Kabbalah,
                                            or of course Gnosticism.)

                                            PMCV
                                          • lady_caritas
                                            ZELITCHENK (#5997) ... believe and to know is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in more details. What does it mean - to know ? What does it mean
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jun 9, 2002
                                              ZELITCHENK (#5997)
                                              >>2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to
                                              believe" and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate
                                              this in more details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it
                                              mean - "to believe"? Where is difference?<<

                                              Hello, AZ. I've only had time to scan your book briefly so far.
                                              Thank you for sharing your efforts. In addition to previous comments
                                              from PMCV and Rob, I'd like to offer a link to an article that
                                              discusses "faith" vs. "gnosis" from a Valentinian perspective. I
                                              noticed in "Conversation 1" of your book, the "Teacher" says, "Man
                                              has three bodies: a spiritual one, a mental one and a physical one."
                                              Gnostics also recognized tripartite nature of humans, the hyle,
                                              psyche, and pneuma.

                                              http://www.cyberus.ca/~brons/gnosis.htm

                                              >>Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
                                              path"? What is it - "esoteric path"?<<

                                              Esoteric traditions as described by PMCV are often distinguished
                                              from "exoteric" paths. Richard Smoley and Jay Kinney in their book
                                              about Western esoteric traditions, _Hidden Wisdom_, write, "Esoteric
                                              spirituality is often contrasted with _exoteric_ spirituality or
                                              _religion_, which constitutes the more outward forms of belief and
                                              practice. […] Esoteric traditions are concerned with
                                              _transcendence_, chiefly of oneself." (p. xiv)

                                              AZ, I don't know if you're familiar with the now defunct _Gnosis_
                                              magazine. Smoley and Kinney were editors of this excellent "Journal
                                              of the Western Inner Traditions." An entire issue was devoted
                                              to "Esoteric Spirituality," (Spring, 1988).
                                              http://www.lumen.org/issue_contents/contents07.html

                                              Cari
                                            • ZELITCHENK
                                              Thanks. I do not want to go in details (I did this in book - www.geocities.com/zelitchenk - Conversations 2-3), but I want to fix 2 important moments you wrote
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Jun 11, 2002
                                                Thanks.

                                                I do not want to go in details (I did this in book -
                                                www.geocities.com/zelitchenk - Conversations 2-3), but I want to fix
                                                2 important moments you wrote about. First. The "to know" means to
                                                get experience - not only words (idea). To know something is to
                                                experience this "something". I think (I know) - this is most
                                                important in gnosticism.

                                                Second. If you do not mean historico-cultural investigation of the
                                                procedures of initiation in different "schools" (it would be very
                                                difficult if resolved at all problem, which in my taste is rather
                                                meaningless also), then the esoteric path is inner path of somebody
                                                who become Initiates. On the other hand, the phases of any inner
                                                path, when the person breaks through to something new (for himself,
                                                of course) are esoteric (for this person).

                                                Agree?
                                                AZ

                                                --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                > Hey AZ, you ask...
                                                >
                                                > >2 simple questions. First. I see the difference between "to
                                                believe"
                                                > and "to know" is fundumental for you. Can you articulate this in
                                                more
                                                > details. What does it mean - "to know"? What does it mean - "to
                                                > believe"? Where is difference?<
                                                >
                                                > In the Gnostic system, the difference between believing (pistis
                                                > [faith]) and knowing "gnosis" is fundemental (after all, it
                                                > is "Gnosticism" not "Pisticism")
                                                >
                                                > One "knows" through a system of experience and critical
                                                perspective.
                                                > How for instance do you "know" that you are reading my message on a
                                                > computer message board? Belief on the other hand is only necessary
                                                > when we chose to maintain an idea despite the lack of enough
                                                evidence
                                                > or logic to give us reason to hold the idea in question. It doesn't
                                                > mean the belief is wrong, just that we draw a destinction on how
                                                the
                                                > conclusion should be reached.
                                                >
                                                > >Second. What is the difference between "esoteric path" and "inner
                                                > path"? What is it - "esoteric path"? <
                                                >
                                                > Esotericism literally referes to an initiatory process, though that
                                                > may be expressed in many forms and is certainly an "inner" process
                                                as
                                                > well. However, "inner path" is a very general destinction for any
                                                > kind of self examination, whereas "esoteric" referes to a more
                                                > specific and methodological approach, generally via a initiatory
                                                > system (alchemy for instance, or Freemasonry, Hermeticism,
                                                Kabbalah,
                                                > or of course Gnosticism.)
                                                >
                                                > PMCV
                                              • arose607@aol.com
                                                ... Oh, could I have an invite? Annalee :0) arose607@aol.com
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Jun 13, 2002


                                                  No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the subject of
                                                  love and compassion in esoteric practice


                                                  Oh, could I have an invite?

                                                  Annalee :0)
                                                  arose607@...
                                                • pmcvflag
                                                  Why sure Ms Annalee, let me post it here for the club so that anyone who wishes can join. This club is specifically about the love forms in 11th - 13th century
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Jun 13, 2002
                                                    Why sure Ms Annalee, let me post it here for the club so that anyone
                                                    who wishes can join.

                                                    This club is specifically about the love forms in 11th - 13th century
                                                    esoteric practice connected to the courts of love. In other words,
                                                    the scope is very specific in some ways. However, we do talk about
                                                    Gnosticism (we draw the connection due to the Platonist origin of
                                                    both, and it seems valid to gain insight as to how such movements
                                                    come about by examining Gnosticism and the surprizing correlations
                                                    that can be seen in some of the more experientialist versions we
                                                    see... such as Monoimos, Carpocrates, etc.)

                                                    Anyways, The club is meant primarily to deal with romantic (erotic)
                                                    tones in the fin amore via the scala amoris of certain troubadours.

                                                    Here is the url http://groups.yahoo.com/group/philosophia2/

                                                    PMCV

                                                    --- In gnosticism2@y..., arose607@a... wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > No, you misunderstand. In fact, I run a club solely on the
                                                    subject of
                                                    > > love and compassion in esoteric practice
                                                    >
                                                    > Oh, could I have an invite?
                                                    >
                                                    > Annalee :0)
                                                    > arose607@a...
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.