I'm agreed on all counts Corax.
--- In gnosticism2@y..., Coraxo <coraxo@e...> wrote:
> Something to chew on about intuitiveness is that it is only one arm
> functional cognition.
> the extreme is that one can become so enmeshed in intuitive
> that it is impossible to verify or validate the veracity of one's
> On the other one can become so textually based, and focused on
> method that the issue is irrelevant to living.
> I have had unpleasant experience with intuitives as I have had with
> rationalists simply because so many intuitives accept without
> impressions of their own introspection. When presented with some
> would suggest unprovability or inconsistency in the intuitive grasp
> individuals I have routinely been met with all manner of attack and
> diatribe, however the most common is thais; "it is true for me and
> me and it is my Truth".
> That is fine, however it smacks of solipsism, a much misused and
> misunderstood term in mystical and gnostic circles these days.
> The Gnosis is something which should and by necessity withstand
> inspection. Otherwise we are not dealing with Gnosis, but rather
> personal wish.
> For this reason dianoesis, or a systematic manner of critique is
> preventing self-deception.
> My own understanding (which BTW is something akin to the download
> experienced) is something I try to keep reserved for myself and use
> gauge by which to measure common insights shared with classical or
> contemporary authors and it is a feed back process by which I
> understanding of these things. paul saw the Light on the road to
> but his exegesis of this Light, revealing his understanding took
the rest of
> his life, and required a framework to make it comprehensible. Paul's
> soteriology is based on pistic, but a perfected pistis founded on
> "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory to be
> strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ
> dwell in your hearts by faith...And to know the love of Christ,
> passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of
> (Eph. 3:16,17,19)"
> here Paul speaks of a faith founded on the revelation of the inner
> the gnosis of which sustains a perfect faith. So I would argue that
> as Paul phrases it here is not the same as doxa or the belief of the
> psychic. faith is the understanding of perfect knowledge and the
> Christ while belief is in those things which one has been told are
> without understanding.
> But, as I seem to understand, the Gnosis is as much Anamnesis as it
> 'knowing' something or obtaining knowledge.
> In the manichaean anthropogeny, Adam is shown his true nature by
> the garden and remembers his origin.
> This usggests to me a gnostic character in the understanding of the
> least, out of which they then take on the practice of liberating
> through practice.
> The reductionistic approach that the bema feast was the only was of
> liberating light is too simplistic and with this I will agree with
> Hey_Market. On the other hand, it was a valid practice, but only
> of Elect life if I understand correctly and it was not Beduhn's
intent in my
> read of his book to reduce the entire Manichaean processs of
> eating cucumbers.
> Now this puts me in a pickle insofar as refering back to the textual
> material to find other aspects of recorded practice which show an
> emphasis on gnosis.
> For me at least, the mythology as instructional and initiatiatory
> suggest an IMPLIED gnostic soteriology required of the Elect.
> This being the case, I think the intent and understanding with
> Cucumber Feast was undertaken carries with it a soteriologic
> in the gnosis of the Elect.