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

Re: Illusion

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... is ... Yes, in Logion 77 (GTh), in order to find the light, one must split the wood or lift up the stone. It does not necessarily mean the light *is*
    Message 1 of 170 , May 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Hello Fred
      > I thought I would point out here that it is doubtful as to whether
      > the Gospel of Thomas is in fact "Gnostic". The Coptic version
      > certainly seems to have Gnostic elements (Maybe even Proto
      > Valintinian), but the context of the GOPh must be considered very
      > carefully passage by passage when dealing with possible Gnostic
      > inferances.
      > If we are to see it in the Gnostic context, then the reference you
      > point out only looks "pantheistic" at first glance. Gnostic belief
      > decidedly not pantheistic, but instead postulates a splinter
      > ("Spinther") of the divine that has either fallen asleep within, or
      > must be brought into, the individual. Thus, the lingo can sometimes
      > look very pantheistic, with the belief in the divine within
      > existance, but the subtle difference is actually pretty severe. In
      > the end, we don't see the Bythos as a whole WITHIN existance, but
      > instead seperated.

      Yes, in Logion 77 (GTh), in order to find the "light," one must split
      the wood or lift up the stone. It does not necessarily mean the
      light *is* the wood or the stone. One must symbolically lift the
      veil, so to speak.

      > It may also be important to note that the "All" here may refer to
      > light of the Second Father (Maybe Barbelo, depending on which
      > cosmogeny we use as a lense) as it spills through the Pleroma,
      > than the Bythos.
      > PMCV
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > Hi Cari,
      > >
      > > I am guessing that you describe Heraclitus as a pantheist to
      > distance
      > > him from the Gnostics,

      Well, Fred, I mentioned that I have seen Heraclitus described
      accordingly. I'm not sure what you mean by "distancing him from the
      Gnostics." I don't view Heraclitus as Gnostic, but surely Plato, for
      instance, might have seen the perceptible world demonstrating H's
      flux theory, even if Plato thought Heraclitus was a bit extreme.

      > yet we can also find examples from Gnostic
      > > texts that would seem to imply a belief in pantheism. For
      > the
      > > Gospel of Thomas:
      > >
      > > "(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the
      > All;
      > > the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me.
      > > Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, and you
      > > shall find me there."

      This has been discussed above and in other posts.

      > > I believe H's actual view is more subtle than mere pantheism.
      > Hussey
      > > says that like the other Milesians, H believed in "the Unbounded"
      > ("to
      > > apeiron"), which was the supreme divinity that controlled the
      > kosmos.
      > > The Unbounded was "outside" of the kosmos and was not bounded by
      > space
      > > or time. What the exact relationship of the Unbounded is to the
      > kosmos
      > > for Heraclitus is not quite clear, but he probably thought that
      > > created and acted upon the kosmos, and that the kosmos is not
      > > necessarily divine. The divinity is outside of the kosmos but it
      > does
      > > act upon it. To me, this kind of anticipates the Gnostic idea of
      > the
      > > imperfect creator.
      > >
      > > Hussey says that the concept of the Unbounded (to apeiron) is so
      > > important that something more needs to be said about its history
      > and
      > > significance.
      > >
      > > "The word 'apeiron' is a negative adjective in the neuter formed
      > from
      > > the noun 'peirar' or 'peras.' This noun has various applications
      > > early Greek, most of which can be summed up by saying that
      > the 'peras'
      > > of X is that which completes X in some respects or marks the
      > > completion of X. So 'to apeiron' is 'that which cannot be
      > completed,'
      > > without any necessary specialization to a spatial or temporal
      > sense.
      > > But the spatial and temporal senses were the most natural for it
      > > bear at this time, namely, 'spatially unbounded' and 'unending in
      > > time.'"
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > > fred

      "(36) God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace,
      satiation and hunger. But he takes various shapes, just as fire, when
      it is mingled with spices, is named according to the taste of each.

      So, this god does not seem to be anthropomorphic, yet it does seem to
      either *be* the world or somehow underlie the order of the world.

      "This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it
      ever was and is and will be: everliving fire, kindling in measures
      and being quenched in measures." (DK22B30)

      Heraclitus describes a kosmos in the symbolic terms of "fire." Fire
      is changeable and interchangeable with all things, so a "cause"
      or "source" or "creator" separate from the kosmos itself isn't
      evident. There does not appear to be a beginning or ending.

      "All things are an exchange for fire, and fire for all things, as
      goods for gold and gold for goods." (DK22B90)

      Fred, regarding your theory, are there any specific passages written
      by Heraclitus that lead you to surmise that the "Unbounded"
      was " `outside' the Kosmos"? "To apeiron" or "that which cannot be
      completed" may be "without any necessary specialization to a spatial
      or temporal sense," but it's not clear to me that Heraclitus intended

    • Wayne
      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.
      Message 170 of 170 , Jun 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
        > > lady_caritas writes:
        > >
        > > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
        > there
        > > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
        > (really)
        > > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
        > > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
        > a
        > > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
        > > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception of
        > the
        > > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
        > a
        > > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
        > entering
        > > > 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 this
        > passage,
        > > > 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.
        > >
        > >
        > > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
        > world,
        > > 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 just
        > 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 the
        > 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?
        > 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"?
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.