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

Beyond [Part I]

Expand Messages
  • Will Brown
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 12, 2002
      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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.