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

Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light

Expand Messages
  • Coraxo
    From: Enheduanna ... recognize any other authority than ... Yes. And IMO this arises from Nafs and attachments. This seems to
    Message 1 of 74 , Jul 3, 2002
      Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light

      From: "Enheduanna" <argot@...>

      > ...everyone seems to want to be unique and special and WITHOUT having to recognize any other authority than
      > themselves.

      Yes.  And IMO this arises from Nafs and attachments.  This seems to arise from a typically Psychic perspective, so that by definition such a person's experiences, however seemingly mystic and even beneficial to them, will not have been the Gnosis. So what results it the kind of Babel of 'individual' accounts and voices you have been describing.

      Interestingly Sufism does have a tripartite view of things; jism - nafs and ruh - with Ruh being the most subtle and the Breath breathed into Adam. There are also 7 levels of refinement of the nafs - or 3, or 5, depending on which school. And then there are the Lataif of which these are the subtle organs of perception - Khafi, Akhfa, and so forth. There are methods to train the use of these organs of perceptivity, and they are jealously guarded against the foolish.

      The trap for someone in this position is that they are referring to the egoic (probably heavily influenced by popular 'spiritual' literature) as their authority.  And unfortunately where such an individual has a charismatic personality, they are likely to go on to mislead others, perhaps even writing books or purporting to teach on the basis of their 'visions'.

      Well that list is large; Blavatsky, Crowley, Gurdjieff, Alice Bailey, Ken Wilber, Osho, Castaneda, Idries Shah, L. Ron Hubbard, and on and on and on.

      This contrasts, as I understand it, with the authority of the private experience of the pneumatic, since in this instance it is the Inner Christ which informs their understanding.

      How do we in fact know that Christ informs the understanding of someone? The entire question is pertinent to understanding how the Pneumatic is expected to act;

      Romans 1313 let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and
      drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in
      quarreling and jealousy.

      Paul spells out the fruits of the Spirit;

      GAL 5:22,23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

      So it would seem that other than merely boasting of his vision, Paul also secreted a great deal of information which was privy to the Pneumatics only; as such what we see in the Epistles are injunctions to the outer Church, the interior teachings are only alluded to. So rather than browbeat his church with some sense of superior knowledge he was in fact patient. Nor did Paul, unlike modern gurus, use his antinomian perspective as a license to act out, no running around with a girl (or boy) on either arm, wine flask and goblet for him.

      (However, one wonders about the Carpocratians.)

      Unfortunately, the whole of Christian dialog is so contaminated by an undercurrent of literalism that any read of Paul as a Gnostic requires, at least for me, some focus and real effort to overcome my years of conditioning against the fundamentalist Church.

      But reading Paul, and Valentinus and Herakleon I am more saddened by how Rome corrupted the teaching, and in fact, in the process of adopting the Septaguint. Rome completely obscured the Christian Gnostic message of freedom under the layers of Jehovian rant ; thou shalt not do this and that, when in fact Paul tells us we are not obligated to the Laws of Torah, something our Congressmen should look up in Galatians next time they want to post the 10 Commandments in the public schools.

      Or the so - called 7 Noachide Laws.

      I think it would be interesting politically for some movement to go afoot challenging the legitimacy of using Old Testament scripture as part of the teaching of the Church. Some sort of Neo-Marcionite camp or something.

      But the simplicity of Paul is what astonishes me; rather than lists of rules, it is more a list of should's- be patient, be kind, be loving, be joyful. I respect his abstemious character - Paul was not an ascetic, but one who understood the virtue of simplicity.

      Parsimony is a good thing.

    • Coraxo
      Thanks Felis; Revelations 2:[17] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the
      Message 74 of 74 , Jul 5, 2002
        Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light Thanks Felis;

        Revelations 2:[17] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

        This troubling passage in the Apocalypse of John of Patmos makes sense in CON-TEXT with what is known of the Valentinian teaching of the name.

        Corax Bin Al-Ghorab Abu Gharib Al Maghribi

        From: "Enheduanna" <argot@...>

        Re: [Gnosticism] Re: Shedding New Light on the Buddha of Light

        Coraxo wrote:

        > How do we in fact know that Christ informs the understanding of someone?

        I just came across an interesting reflection on this with reference to the
        Valentinian concept of the Name:


        "As noted in Dawson (1992), Thomassen (1993), and Zyla (1996) the Name is
        closely identified by Valentinus with 'bold speaking' or 'free speaking'
        (parhesia). This notion of 'bold speech' as a characteristic of the presence
        of the Name seems to be derived from the New Testament. In the book of Acts,
        speaking boldly, healings and miracles are all said to be produced by the
        presence of the Name (Acts 4:29-30). According to Valentinus, the Father's
        "free act of speaking is the manifestation of the Son" (Valentinus Fragment
        2). He goes on to say that the Son visits the heart of the individual in
        order to purify it. Similarly, in his account of the creation of human
        beings, the presence of the Name within Adam is said to produce 'bold
        speech' which frightens the angels(Valentinus Fragment 5). Just as the
        Father expressed himself boldly in the Son, so the Son expresses himself in
        "bold speech" within the individual person. As Zyla (1996) states, "Through
        the sacrifice of Jesus, gnosis of the Father was gained and can be passed on
        through parrhesia (bold speech)". Gnosis of the Name produces "bold speech"
        in the individual.

        "Valentinus attributes inspired speech to the presence of the Name. The Name
        causes the individual to "utter sounds superior to what its modeling
        justified" (Valentinus Fragment 1). According to Marcus, inspired speech
        results from being joined to one's bridegroom angel (Irenaeus Against Heresy
        1:13:3). This further confirms the thesis that the angel is identical with
        the name. The experience of gnosis is the reception of one's angel/name
        which is a particular instance of the Son/Name. "

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

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