Beyond [Part I]
- Reply to #6593:
Cari; after I wrote what follows, I saw that two parts were necessary,
where Part II answers the question I raised in Part I. This should
bring my rehashing to an end.
Oh, heavens to betsy, we have gone around the same circle enough times
and ended up in the same spot enough times that I sort of figure there
is no way our of it (I have just revisited those three posts). It is
not that I do not enjoy plodding this particular circle, for I do,
which is why I return to this group from time to time to get a few
laps in, but that destiny evidently decrees that we plod this same
circle in respect to Gnosis. Ah well then, plod it shall be.
In reference to a Beyond that is part of me, I thought I had been
describing such; at least, the attempt to so do. There is Presence in
which there is Fullness and there is presence which is fullness. One
must first be dumped into the Former before there is a sense of the
latter, yet, paradoxically, to say that one is dumped into the Former
is to misstate it, for there is only One in the Former. To speak of
returning from the Former is also to misstate it, for there was no
going. Perhaps the difference is that I would say that I am part of
the Beyond, and that it is not in me other than I am in it, as it is
the whole; Being.
In reference to talking about Gnosis as about mental constructs? I
have defined it as coming to presence through Presence, where one's
sense of self comes to an end and re-sets with a presence before
lacking. In reflecting upon the before and after of the shift, it
becomes obvious that there was a shift in the ground of that sense of
self from the temporal to the presential. Is that what you mean be a
mental construct? That is my description of it, as it was revealed to
me, so to speak, and a description is a mental construct; the
revelation being separate from the description of it. Isn't the
description couched in mythic terms is a also a description of what
was revealed? Of course, if the myth is taken literally, the
description aspect of it is seen as simply describing what is.
My question has essentially always been this: Is what I term Gnosis in
anyway related to what Gnostics call Gnosis? Is there one Gnosis clad
in different systems of description, one of which adds a Beyond to it?
The only way I know of approaching an answer to that question is to
find a commonality in our respective experiences of the Gnosis
process. If there is one Gnosis, one would suspect that there is
something about it that will shine through any descriptive system
attached to it, even if one descriptive system goes Beyond the other.
But, in saying that, I realize that what is involved can only be a
dialogue. I can toss my cards on the table and see if any other sees
the same values though the marks be different. It is my experience
that there is indeed an indirect communication that points to things
of the spirit and that that which it points to is what is meant by
spirit. [continued in Part II]