Re: [Gnosticism2] Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D
----- Original Message -----
From: "George" <historynow2002@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 2:12 AM
Subject: [Gnosticism2] Advancing the discussion of "from where" :-D
> Dear PMCV,
> As to what you believe.... you write:
> "I think it most likely that Pythagoras was, by and large, a
> > mythological figure. His order was largely destroyed by the
> Athenian pogrom, and then revived shortly thereafter."
> Okay.... I'll go with that. But I guess, you ALSO believe
> that there was a man behind this "myth"... for you write:
> " Where did Pythagoras' ideas come from? Well, in order to
> know that we would have to have a good idea of what the real
> Pythagoras even believed."
> I see your point here.
> So now, in order to continue to advance the discussion,
> I have to ask you this:
> **Where*** do you think the Pythagoras School got its ideas
> for a "secret" fraternity?
> I don't want to get stuck on the tar baby of a literal
> Pythagoras.... when my discussion only needs to focus on
> the existence of the school of ideas that we call Pythagoras.
Yes, let us focus solely on the veil of lies constructed to obscure the
truth which Pythagoras originally revealed. This is precisely what the
creators of the deception originally intended.
Consider. Pythagoras uncovered the key to a fundamental system of knowledge.
This knowledge was explicitly open to verification. So, it was not a
of belief or faith, but of knowledge gained through experience. Numbers have
form, forms have function. Such rules do not vary and these rules cannot be
broken. Such a teaching had immense power which threatened those in power.
So the movement was crushed. Still traces remained. The importance of
numbers, geometry and of course beans. These unanswered echoes might inspire
future seekers to ask the proper questions, allow them to stumble across the
same truth as Pythagoras. And so an alternative system was crafted and hung
upon the bare traces of the original teachings.
What are its sources? It source is the truth as revealed by Pythagoras. This
truth was taken and turned upon its head.
An identical state of affairs occurred within Gnosticism. Classic Gnosticism
is nothing more than an elaborate veil designed to distract the seeker from
the true works of Gnosticism. There existed a series of texts which revealed
hidden knowledge which was subject to verification. These texts were
suppressed while others were put forth by the church fathers as being
representative of Gnosticism. The fraudulent texts were designed in order to
keep the seeker from pondering the true aspects of the hidden knowledge.
- The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness
you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination,
Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.
To Truly be Good you must be Free from the knowledge, from having
known, experienced wrong doing, you must be innocent.
Innocence exists only when there is no Evil, a long as Evil exist
Good is Evil and Evil is good, there is no innocence.
In between the Light and the Darkness, Parallel Universes, the Two
Worlds of Reality, One the World of Reality as seen in the light of
day, the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now, Reality that exists
independent of our thoughts concerning it and the World of the
Imagination, the middle World, the World of Illusion, Sin; Reality as
seen in the Second light of the Sun, Moon Light, where thinly veiled
shadowy figures lurk in the Darkest corners of the Mind.
By the light of the Silvery Moon, Light that is separated out of the
Darkness, Twice light.
Illusion Trice Light, Reality hauled up out of the darkest depths of
the abyss, the imagination.
A Lie is the Truth, an Illusion is a Reality, Evil is Good, Good is
Evil, Good and Evil is Evil.
Yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pessy@c... wrote:be
> > lady_caritas writes:
> > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
> > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
> > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
> > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
> > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
> > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception ofbe
> > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
> > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
> > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
> convinced or
> > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
> > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from thisthis
> > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
> > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
> > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.last
> > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
> > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
> > Klaus Schilling
> Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
> sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line justthought
> previously discussed about "good" and "evil," but to other comments
> in the GPh passage as a whole.) However, I guess my point was,
> perhaps we could only assume the line related to Zoroastrian
> when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know theOr
> original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
> the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
> do you think it is implied somehow?fit
> Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
> within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
> defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?