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

Gnosis is Not Emptiness

Expand Messages
  • lightpotential
    I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh: Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you can do to get it. Any effort you make can
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 26, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh:

      "Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you can
      do to get
      it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.

      Ramesh"

      This is an interesting statement, that was recently made. On the one
      hand, I can see what it means, but on the other, I do not like the
      sound of it too much. I believe that God, is an all knowing God,
      infinite in nature and being and scope, and who cannot be contained.
      Many people talk about gnosis and enlightenment, and the experience
      of it; and they go on to say that it is our goal to experience
      gnosis, and yet, I do not think that this is the 'end of the journey'
      so to speak. It is written in the Corpus Hermetica that our
      ultimate 'prize' is to become God. Thus, it disturbs me when I hear
      gnostics speak of emptiness; and clearing our minds; and rejoining
      the infinite. This talk seems to dwell too much on oblivion, in the
      way it is presented by many. There is too much emphasis on escaping
      death (this realm); and not enough on attaining Life. We must not
      forget that life is something that is lived. There may be a profound
      truth to these saying that 'stillness' and 'emptiness' are the path
      to gnosis. However, if the ultimate prize of humanity is to become
      God, it must be remembered that God is an ACTIVE BEING - the most
      active. Thus, it is best to speak of gnosis as a way TO LIFE and of
      knowledge of how TO LIVE, rather than state that once we have it,
      then 'thats it', 'we have arrived' and there is nothing else. To me,
      seeking gnosis is of course seeking enlightenment and transformation
      of our being; but it is also seeking understanding of how to live.
      Once attained, it is the true beginning of our lives, and the end of
      death.

      Lightpotential
    • pmcvflag
      Ah, but Lightpotential, it is by no means a convention or dogma that Gnostics spek of emptiness . It has been argued in this very club that enlightenment
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 27, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Ah, but Lightpotential, it is by no means a convention or dogma that
        Gnostics spek of "emptiness". It has been argued in this very club
        that "enlightenment" and Gnosis are not necessarily the same thing.

        I do think it is important to point out that "Becomming God" is not
        exactly something you'll find in Gnostic liturature (and the Corpus
        Hermetica isn't technically "Gnostic" by the way). It has also been a
        point of dispute in here whether the historic Gnostics considered the
        true God to be a "being" at all, active or otherwise.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@y..., "lightpotential" <lightpotential@y...> wrote:
        > I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh:
        >
        > "Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you can
        > do to get
        > it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.
        >
        > Ramesh"
        >
        > This is an interesting statement, that was recently made. On the
        one
        > hand, I can see what it means, but on the other, I do not like the
        > sound of it too much. I believe that God, is an all knowing God,
        > infinite in nature and being and scope, and who cannot be
        contained.
        > Many people talk about gnosis and enlightenment, and the experience
        > of it; and they go on to say that it is our goal to experience
        > gnosis, and yet, I do not think that this is the 'end of the
        journey'
        > so to speak. It is written in the Corpus Hermetica that our
        > ultimate 'prize' is to become God. Thus, it disturbs me when I hear
        > gnostics speak of emptiness; and clearing our minds; and rejoining
        > the infinite. This talk seems to dwell too much on oblivion, in the
        > way it is presented by many. There is too much emphasis on escaping
        > death (this realm); and not enough on attaining Life. We must not
        > forget that life is something that is lived. There may be a
        profound
        > truth to these saying that 'stillness' and 'emptiness' are the path
        > to gnosis. However, if the ultimate prize of humanity is to become
        > God, it must be remembered that God is an ACTIVE BEING - the most
        > active. Thus, it is best to speak of gnosis as a way TO LIFE and of
        > knowledge of how TO LIVE, rather than state that once we have it,
        > then 'thats it', 'we have arrived' and there is nothing else. To
        me,
        > seeking gnosis is of course seeking enlightenment and
        transformation
        > of our being; but it is also seeking understanding of how to live.
        > Once attained, it is the true beginning of our lives, and the end
        of
        > death.
        >
        > Lightpotential
      • Coraxo
        This are a good points you make, Flag; First, enlightenment is a pretty meaningless word and one not used in the original languages of Buddhism or the Hindu
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 27, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnosis is Not Emptiness This are a good points you make, Flag;

          First, "enlightenment" is a pretty meaningless word and one not used in the original languages of Buddhism or the Hindu Dharmas. We encounter if primarily in English writings "about" the Dharmas - but the word itself has been assigned to terms like "Samadhi" by Europeans -and consequently when "locals" like this Ramesh guy write things for the English speaking world they use the terminology of their audience. In sum, the concept of "enlightenment" is a modern invention - one probably originating in the Theosophical world of the 19th Century. I say this because the term "enlightenment" in the 18th Century meant something else entirely - rationalism, secualrism and humanism were tied to the term.

          "Emptiness" - another term of hand-waving and mystery-making by the many gurus out there; first, Ramesh' advaita is one formulation based on nihilism, a formulation commonly seen among modernist Hindu dharma - its opposite form is monism, but they are both advaita - non-dual outlooks. But emptiness does not mean "nothingness" it suggests a potential for fullness and differentiation - people become beguiled by this "emptiness" discussion and think that "enlightenment" is a sort of mindless, thoughtless, nothing, trance in which something ineffable happens. The opposite is the monist view in which the individual seeks to "become God" or to lose his identity so that "God" can manifest, neither of these viewpoints speak to classical Gnosticism. The qualified monism of Valentinus bears little resemblance to the absolute monism of Hindu Advaita, and no resemblance at all to the nihilism of Ramesh.

          In fact Ramesh speaks extensively about destiny and fate, the very Demiurgic forces which the human being contends with and in many ways resembles Stoicism in his materialistic acceptance of the primacy of "programming" in the human organism - western gnosticism understands the cosmological prison of "the flesh" and seeks to break free of this - something which Ramesh denies as possible from what I can understand.

          Ramesh: "Sure. So what it means is that there has to be that kind of intensity in the seeking. But he also said, "If you want to make an effort, you must make an effort; but if effort is destined not to be made, effort will not be made." That's what Ramana Maharshi said. So you see, whether one seeks or doesn't seek is not in your control. Whether seeking for God or seeking for money happens, it is neither to your credit nor your fault. "

          In the end it is pretty pointless - what sort of comfort can one take in being a nothing piece of flotsam stirred by the waves of external forces? While this is the case of the Demiurgic cosmological prison - the hope for freedom from fate is central to gnosticism.

          Gnosticism is not about these things. If we look at the primary Gnostic literature we don't see the sort of references to becoming "God" or being "empty", the Gnostic writings speak primarily of a world which is suffering, the existential state of mankind individually and communally, and the causes and remedies of this state, none of which have to do primarily with the concerns authors like Ramesh address.

          Corax

          Corax




          From: pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          Reply-To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:57:01 -0000
          To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnosis is Not Emptiness


          Ah, but Lightpotential, it is by no means a convention or dogma that
          Gnostics spek of "emptiness". It has been argued in this very club
          that "enlightenment" and Gnosis are not necessarily the same thing.

          I do think it is important to point out that "Becomming God" is not
          exactly something you'll find in Gnostic liturature (and the Corpus
          Hermetica isn't technically "Gnostic" by the way). It has also been a
          point of dispute in here whether the historic Gnostics considered the
          true God to be a "being" at all, active or otherwise.

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@y..., "lightpotential" <lightpotential@y...> wrote:
          > I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh:
          >
          > "Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you can
          > do to get
          > it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.
          >
          > Ramesh"
          >
          > This is an interesting statement, that was recently made. On the
          one
          > hand, I can see what it means, but on the other, I do not like the
          > sound of it too much. I believe that God, is an all knowing God,
          > infinite in nature and being and scope, and who cannot be
          contained.
          > Many people talk about gnosis and enlightenment, and the experience
          > of it; and they go on to say that it is our goal to experience
          > gnosis, and yet, I do not think that this is the 'end of the
          journey'
          > so to speak. It is written in the Corpus Hermetica that our
          > ultimate 'prize' is to become God. Thus, it disturbs me when I hear
          > gnostics speak of emptiness; and clearing our minds; and rejoining
          > the infinite. This talk seems to dwell too much on oblivion, in the
          > way it is presented by many. There is too much emphasis on escaping
          > death (this realm); and not enough on attaining Life. We must not
          > forget that life is something that is lived. There may be a
          profound
          > truth to these saying that 'stillness' and 'emptiness' are the path
          > to gnosis. However, if the ultimate prize of humanity is to become
          > God, it must be remembered that God is an ACTIVE BEING - the most
          > active. Thus, it is best to speak of gnosis as a way TO LIFE and of
          > knowledge of how TO LIVE, rather than state that once we have it,
          > then 'thats it', 'we have arrived' and there is nothing else. To
          me,
          > seeking gnosis is of course seeking enlightenment and
          transformation
          > of our being; but it is also seeking understanding of how to live.
          > Once attained, it is the true beginning of our lives, and the end
          of
          > death.
          >
          > Lightpotential


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

          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 <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

        • lightpotential
          You raise some fair points. I would say of myself that I am a gnostic; I do look at many sources of information, from works such as the Corpus Hermetica or the
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 28, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            You raise some fair points. I would say of myself that I am a
            gnostic; I do look at many sources of information, from works such as
            the Corpus Hermetica or the Nag Hammadi texts to the research
            conducted by modern day physicists. The gnostic tradition is one of
            interpretation, if you understand my meaning. Gnostics historically
            have, from the 2nd century AD, selected stories from many sources and
            interprete them according to a certain 'framework'. This is what a
            number of scholars refer to as the gnostic tradition. For each of us
            as individuals though, upon the path to knowledge and life, I suppose
            it all rests upon the sources of information that each of us
            considers valid 'occult' knowledge as to what we will feel helps us
            develop to our fullest potential.

            As to your statement that:

            "It has been argued in this very club that "enlightenment" and Gnosis
            are not necessarily the same thing."

            I think this is a good point also. Perhaps they are not necessarily
            the same thing. This may be right and could certainly clear up a few
            conflicts that I appear to be experiencing in the 2012 Assension room
            at the moment. To give my own view, I tend to think of the stories in
            the Bible where Jesus speaks of people needing to put 'light in their
            lamps'. To me, this is indicative of our receiving gnosis in the
            sense that once we possess this light, we are no longer
            empty 'counterfeit claims' i.e. that our souls or our being is no
            longer empty. We have become 'substantial' and are no longer a part
            of or no longer 'belong' to this realm (the Kosmos). That being said
            though. I do not think that this is the end of learning itself. I
            still think that as beings, we continue to learn and to experience
            other realms of existence. It may be that there are higher levels of
            knowledge and higher levels of being that can be attained.

            Lightpotential



            --- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > Ah, but Lightpotential, it is by no means a convention or dogma
            that
            > Gnostics spek of "emptiness". It has been argued in this very club
            > that "enlightenment" and Gnosis are not necessarily the same thing.
            >
            > I do think it is important to point out that "Becomming God" is not
            > exactly something you'll find in Gnostic liturature (and the Corpus
            > Hermetica isn't technically "Gnostic" by the way). It has also been
            a
            > point of dispute in here whether the historic Gnostics considered
            the
            > true God to be a "being" at all, active or otherwise.

            PMCV



            -- In gnosticism2@y..., "lightpotential" <lightpotential@y...> wrote:
            > > I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh:
            > >
            > > "Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you
            can
            > > do to get
            > > it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.
            > >
            > > Ramesh"
            > >
            > > This is an interesting statement, that was recently made. On the
            > one
            > > hand, I can see what it means, but on the other, I do not like
            the
            > > sound of it too much. I believe that God, is an all knowing God,
            > > infinite in nature and being and scope, and who cannot be
            > contained.
            > > Many people talk about gnosis and enlightenment, and the
            experience
            > > of it; and they go on to say that it is our goal to experience
            > > gnosis, and yet, I do not think that this is the 'end of the
            > journey'
            > > so to speak. It is written in the Corpus Hermetica that our
            > > ultimate 'prize' is to become God. Thus, it disturbs me when I
            hear
            > > gnostics speak of emptiness; and clearing our minds; and
            rejoining
            > > the infinite. This talk seems to dwell too much on oblivion, in
            the
            > > way it is presented by many. There is too much emphasis on
            escaping
            > > death (this realm); and not enough on attaining Life. We must not
            > > forget that life is something that is lived. There may be a
            > profound
            > > truth to these saying that 'stillness' and 'emptiness' are the
            path
            > > to gnosis. However, if the ultimate prize of humanity is to
            become
            > > God, it must be remembered that God is an ACTIVE BEING - the most
            > > active. Thus, it is best to speak of gnosis as a way TO LIFE and
            of
            > > knowledge of how TO LIVE, rather than state that once we have it,
            > > then 'thats it', 'we have arrived' and there is nothing else. To
            > me,
            > > seeking gnosis is of course seeking enlightenment and
            > transformation
            > > of our being; but it is also seeking understanding of how to
            live.
            > > Once attained, it is the true beginning of our lives, and the end
            > of
            > > death.
            > >
            > > Lightpotential
          • lightpotential
            This is a very good reply Corax, and I think that you are right on the money to link the term of enlightenment to 18th century rationalism and materialism.
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 28, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              This is a very good reply Corax, and I think that you are 'right on
              the money' to link the term of enlightenment to 18th century
              rationalism and materialism. This is the way in which most people use
              the term. I suppose for myself, I have attributed my own personal
              bias to the word and at least in my own mind it refers to a sublime
              state of some sort. Words can mean different things to different
              people.

              You also make a good reference to this realm (the kosmos) by speaking
              of the "Demiurgic cosmological prison" and rightly state that: "the
              hope for freedom from fate is central to gnosticism".

              However, I do disagree somewhat with the following passage that you
              make:

              "If we look at the primary Gnostic literature we don't see the sort
              of references to becoming "God" or being "empty", the Gnostic
              writings speak primarily of a world which is suffering, the
              existential state of mankind individually and communally, and the
              causes and remedies of this state.

              To me, the Pistis Sophia is a classic gnostic text and among the most
              important. There are mysteries that are covered in this work which
              are also treated to a lesser extent in the Bible in the 4 gospels of
              Jesus, that examine this concept of emptiness, especially as it
              relates to the human condition. Jesus speaks of souls as being empty
              containers, much like counterfeited money. The whole concept of
              gnosis is tied to our receiving 'light in our lamps' or knowledge in
              our souls. It is this which, in my view at least, is what frees us
              from the sphere of the fates and the lower realms that we inhabit
              that are ruled by the demiurge. There are great mysteries connected
              to this idea of people (souls) being empty containers. In fact, I
              believe that the realm that we inhabit which is the Kosmos, one of
              the lowest realms of creation, was 'counterfeited into existence' as
              a natural consequence of the continued EXTENSION from God that led to
              the creation of all realms in their entireity. It's creation
              was 'planned' from the beginning. It had to be so. It is for us to
              rise above this realm and through this act we exit this world of
              suffering.

              Lightpotential


              --- In gnosticism2@y..., Coraxo <coraxo@e...> wrote:
              > This are a good points you make, Flag;
              >
              > First, "enlightenment" is a pretty meaningless word and one not
              used in the
              > original languages of Buddhism or the Hindu Dharmas. We encounter if
              > primarily in English writings "about" the Dharmas - but the word
              itself has
              > been assigned to terms like "Samadhi" by Europeans -and
              consequently when
              > "locals" like this Ramesh guy write things for the English speaking
              world
              > they use the terminology of their audience. In sum, the concept of
              > "enlightenment" is a modern invention - one probably originating in
              the
              > Theosophical world of the 19th Century. I say this because the term
              > "enlightenment" in the 18th Century meant something else entirely -
              > rationalism, secualrism and humanism were tied to the term.
              >
              > "Emptiness" - another term of hand-waving and mystery-making by the
              many
              > gurus out there; first, Ramesh' advaita is one formulation based on
              > nihilism, a formulation commonly seen among modernist Hindu dharma -
              its
              > opposite form is monism, but they are both advaita - non-dual
              outlooks. But
              > emptiness does not mean "nothingness" it suggests a potential for
              fullness
              > and differentiation - people become beguiled by this "emptiness"
              discussion
              > and think that "enlightenment" is a sort of mindless, thoughtless,
              nothing,
              > trance in which something ineffable happens. The opposite is the
              monist view
              > in which the individual seeks to "become God" or to lose his
              identity so
              > that "God" can manifest, neither of these viewpoints speak to
              classical
              > Gnosticism. The qualified monism of Valentinus bears little
              resemblance to
              > the absolute monism of Hindu Advaita, and no resemblance at all to
              the
              > nihilism of Ramesh.
              >
              > In fact Ramesh speaks extensively about destiny and fate, the very
              Demiurgic
              > forces which the human being contends with and in many ways
              resembles
              > Stoicism in his materialistic acceptance of the primacy
              of "programming" in
              > the human organism - western gnosticism understands the
              cosmological prison
              > of "the flesh" and seeks to break free of this - something which
              Ramesh
              > denies as possible from what I can understand.
              >
              > Ramesh: "Sure. So what it means is that there has to be that kind of
              > intensity in the seeking. But he also said, "If you want to make an
              effort,
              > you must make an effort; but if effort is destined not to be made,
              effort
              > will not be made." That's what Ramana Maharshi said. So you see,
              whether one
              > seeks or doesn't seek is not in your control. Whether seeking for
              God or
              > seeking for money happens, it is neither to your credit nor your
              fault. "
              >
              > In the end it is pretty pointless - what sort of comfort can one
              take in
              > being a nothing piece of flotsam stirred by the waves of external
              forces?
              > While this is the case of the Demiurgic cosmological prison - the
              hope for
              > freedom from fate is central to gnosticism.
              >
              > Gnosticism is not about these things. If we look at the primary
              Gnostic
              > literature we don't see the sort of references to becoming "God" or
              being
              > "empty", the Gnostic writings speak primarily of a world which is
              suffering,
              > the existential state of mankind individually and communally, and
              the causes
              > and remedies of this state, none of which have to do primarily with
              the
              > concerns authors like Ramesh address.
              >
              > Corax
              >
              > Corax
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
              > Reply-To: gnosticism2@y...
              > Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:57:01 -0000
              > To: gnosticism2@y...
              > Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Gnosis is Not Emptiness
              >
              >
              > Ah, but Lightpotential, it is by no means a convention or dogma that
              > Gnostics spek of "emptiness". It has been argued in this very club
              > that "enlightenment" and Gnosis are not necessarily the same thing.
              >
              > I do think it is important to point out that "Becomming God" is not
              > exactly something you'll find in Gnostic liturature (and the Corpus
              > Hermetica isn't technically "Gnostic" by the way). It has also been
              a
              > point of dispute in here whether the historic Gnostics considered
              the
              > true God to be a "being" at all, active or otherwise.
              >
              > PMCV
              >
              > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "lightpotential" <lightpotential@y...>
              wrote:
              > > I wish to reply to the following statement by Ramesh:
              > >
              > > "Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you
              can
              > > do to get
              > > it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.
              > >
              > > Ramesh"
              > >
              > > This is an interesting statement, that was recently made. On the
              > one
              > > hand, I can see what it means, but on the other, I do not like the
              > > sound of it too much. I believe that God, is an all knowing God,
              > > infinite in nature and being and scope, and who cannot be
              > contained.
              > > Many people talk about gnosis and enlightenment, and the
              experience
              > > of it; and they go on to say that it is our goal to experience
              > > gnosis, and yet, I do not think that this is the 'end of the
              > journey'
              > > so to speak. It is written in the Corpus Hermetica that our
              > > ultimate 'prize' is to become God. Thus, it disturbs me when I
              hear
              > > gnostics speak of emptiness; and clearing our minds; and rejoining
              > > the infinite. This talk seems to dwell too much on oblivion, in
              the
              > > way it is presented by many. There is too much emphasis on
              escaping
              > > death (this realm); and not enough on attaining Life. We must not
              > > forget that life is something that is lived. There may be a
              > profound
              > > truth to these saying that 'stillness' and 'emptiness' are the
              path
              > > to gnosis. However, if the ultimate prize of humanity is to become
              > > God, it must be remembered that God is an ACTIVE BEING - the most
              > > active. Thus, it is best to speak of gnosis as a way TO LIFE and
              of
              > > knowledge of how TO LIVE, rather than state that once we have it,
              > > then 'thats it', 'we have arrived' and there is nothing else. To
              > me,
              > > seeking gnosis is of course seeking enlightenment and
              > transformation
              > > of our being; but it is also seeking understanding of how to live.
              > > Once attained, it is the true beginning of our lives, and the end
              > of
              > > death.
              > >
              > > Lightpotential
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@y...
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
            • lady_caritas
              ... The whole concept of ... in ... Hello, lightpotential. I agree that Gnosis involves freedom. If we look at another Gnostic text, we might see another
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 30, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@y..., "lightpotential" <lightpotential@y...> wrote:

                The whole concept of
                > gnosis is tied to our receiving 'light in our lamps' or knowledge
                in
                > our souls. It is this which, in my view at least, is what frees us
                > from the sphere of the fates and the lower realms that we inhabit
                > that are ruled by the demiurge. There are great mysteries connected
                > to this idea of people (souls) being empty containers.


                Hello, lightpotential. I agree that Gnosis involves freedom. If we
                look at another Gnostic text, we might see another angle.

                "For like lack of acquaintance, truth reposes in itself while it is
                hidden. But when it appears and is recognized, it is glorified
                insofar as it overpowers lack of acquaintance and error. It bestows
                freedom. The Word said, `If you know the truth, the truth will make
                you free.' Lack of acquaintance is a slave: acquaintance is
                freedom. If we become acquainted with the truth, we shall find the
                fruits of truth within us. If we join with it, it will receive our
                fullness." (_Gospel of Philip_)

                ". . it will receive our fullness." Interesting turn of phrase,
                isn't it? IOW, lack of acquaintance could be blindness to what is
                already there, waiting to be "re"-cognized. We would not be empty
                containers waiting to be filled, but rather humans that already
                contain "the fruits of truth" yet to be discovered. Upon
                acquaintance we then join with truth, which receives *our* fullness.


                In fact, I
                > believe that the realm that we inhabit which is the Kosmos, one of
                > the lowest realms of creation, was 'counterfeited into existence'
                as
                > a natural consequence of the continued EXTENSION from God that led
                to
                > the creation of all realms in their entireity. It's creation
                > was 'planned' from the beginning. It had to be so. It is for us to
                > rise above this realm and through this act we exit this world of
                > suffering.


                I was wondering if you could clarify what you mean by "God" in this
                context. Is it still your view that "God" is an "active being"?
                A "True God" or "Bythos" that PMCV mentioned would be infinite and
                ineffable and therefore not a "being" nor "active" in a temporal
                sense. Also, I was also wondering if you could expand on what you
                mean by " `planned' from the beginning" and whether or not that might
                relate to Gnostic mythology.

                Cari
              • pmcvflag
                Lightpotential said.... ... most ... of ... empty ... in ... as ... to ... which parts exactly are you talking about Lightpotential? In my recollection Jesus
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 6, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lightpotential said....

                  > To me, the Pistis Sophia is a classic gnostic text and among the
                  most
                  > important. There are mysteries that are covered in this work which
                  > are also treated to a lesser extent in the Bible in the 4 gospels
                  of
                  > Jesus, that examine this concept of emptiness, especially as it
                  > relates to the human condition. Jesus speaks of souls as being
                  empty
                  > containers, much like counterfeited money. The whole concept of
                  > gnosis is tied to our receiving 'light in our lamps' or knowledge
                  in
                  > our souls. It is this which, in my view at least, is what frees us
                  > from the sphere of the fates and the lower realms that we inhabit
                  > that are ruled by the demiurge. There are great mysteries connected
                  > to this idea of people (souls) being empty containers. In fact, I
                  > believe that the realm that we inhabit which is the Kosmos, one of
                  > the lowest realms of creation, was 'counterfeited into existence'
                  as
                  > a natural consequence of the continued EXTENSION from God that led
                  to
                  > the creation of all realms in their entireity. It's creation
                  > was 'planned' from the beginning. It had to be so. It is for us to
                  > rise above this realm and through this act we exit this world of
                  > suffering.

                  which parts exactly are you talking about Lightpotential? In my
                  recollection Jesus speaks of the souls of men in a rather negative
                  light (as in chapter 8 where he explains that the apostles are absent
                  the "souls of the rulers". It also speaks of the "fulness" in a
                  positive way. None of this seems related to the kind of "emptynes"
                  that Corax is talking about though... two completely different things
                  it would appear to me. Can you clerify for us?

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