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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: A Level of the Logos

Expand Messages
  • Penndragon
    MM Wayne Or another way of puting it. The Creator is also his Creation. MP Penn -- To such people, I say that God is everywhere, not in a particular form, but
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      MM Wayne

      Or another way of puting it. The Creator is also his Creation.

      MP
      Penn

      --
      To such people, I say that God is everywhere, not in a particular form, but
      as an omnipresent awareness or power. God is consciousness itself. And by
      concentrated, sincere prayer, you are tuning your mental radio to receive
      that power. If I say there is nice music in this room, some of you may
      disagree and say, "We don't hear any music. How can you say that there is
      music in the room?" To you, I say get a radio, tune it properly, and you
      will hear the music.

      Swami Satchidananda


      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > >It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
      > > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
      > > the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
      > > Gnostic writings.
      > >
      > > PMCV
      >
      > It is not Quibbling, it is significantly, Muy, Importante.
      >
      > The Word is God, God is the Word.
      >
      > Two separate and distinctly Different Statements.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Penndragon
      MM Wayne Thought ya might like the following quote MP Penn -- First there is Brahman, Lord of all, with whom is the Word, and the Word, verily, is Brahman. Rig
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        MM Wayne

        Thought ya might like the following quote

        MP
        Penn

        --
        First there is Brahman, Lord of all, with whom is the Word, and the Word,
        verily, is Brahman.

        Rig Veda



        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > >It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
        > > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
        > > the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
        > > Gnostic writings.
        > >
        > > PMCV
        >
        > It is not Quibbling, it is significantly, Muy, Importante.
        >
        > The Word is God, God is the Word.
        >
        > Two separate and distinctly Different Statements.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • pneumen_borealis
        ... Do you think the author of John would have translated Logos into Word ? I sometimes think he may have used Holy Spirit instead. ... It s a very
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
          > with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short post.
          > The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it has a
          > wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study, teaching....
          > logic... are definately part of the point, within a personification
          > (the term Torah also does not impart that notion of personification
          > intended by the text).

          Do you think the author of John would have translated "Logos" into
          "Word"? I sometimes think he may have used Holy Spirit instead.

          >
          > To go on to John's point. What you describe, John, is pantheism.
          > Pantheism is not something the historic Gnostics believed in, nor is
          > it supported in Gnostic texts that I am aware of. There IS, though,
          > a notion of the divine within mankind that could look on the surface
          > to be pantheistic. It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
          > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
          > the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
          > Gnostic writings.
          >

          It's a very important point. Gnosticism describes the human condition
          as being alienated from the Logos. A pantheists would tend to say that
          all is God, so that it is impossible to alienated from God.

          > PMCV
          >
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "John Gilbert" <john2002@a...>
          > wrote:
          > > Gentlepeople,
          > >
          > > Penn posited: "In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the
          > Torah was
          > > with God, and the Torah was God."
          > >


          I don't think so. The Word or Logos of John is somethng far more
          fundamental than teachings or scripture. It is the original spirit in
          the universe from which all creation emanates. This is distinct from
          God the Creator of the Old Testament (the demiurge, to gnostics), who
          put up walls between humans and the Word when he created the flawed
          physical universe. The way to the Word, the divince spark, remains
          within man, and I believe it is closely related to our capacity to
          love. Perhaps the closest level to the Word is the Holy Spirit.

          > > My response is that in the beginning (everything) was, and
          > (everything) was
          > > with God, and (everything) was God. To this it can be added there
          > never was
          > > and is not now anything that is not God. This, to me, is the
          > fundamental
          > > Dogma of all Gnostics that God is everything and everything is God
          > by
          > > whatever name you wish to call Her, Him or It. From that
          > beginning rise all
          > > Gnostic Sects and indeed all spiritual paths.
          > >

          I think this is wrong. Firstly, Gnosticism has no dogmas. It has
          descriptions of the human condition that are somewhat fluid and make
          sense to those who find them useful. They can cetainly be taken for
          dogma, if one is inclined to interpret descriptions as prescriptions.

          For example, some take dictionaries as ultimate authorities on the
          spelling and meaning of words. I take them as a descriptive snapshot
          of how language is used at a given time. The same can be said for the
          myths and scriptures of Gnosticism.

          Gnosticism has quite a different starting point than dogma and creeds.
          Gnosticism has as its starting point the feeling that one is only
          partially connected to the Divine. It is not something one believes.
          It is something that is felt. The myths of Gnosticism illuminate that
          condition, and grants the Gnostic the perspective to rise above the
          alienation.

          I would go as far to say that Fundamentalism is the opposite of
          Gnosticism.
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello pneumen_borealis ... We are overlooking the second meaning of Logos here. It could as easily be translated at Idea, instead of Word, really the Idea in
          Message 4 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello pneumen_borealis

            On 10-Oct-03, you wrote:

            >> Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
            >> with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short
            >> post. The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it
            >> has a wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study,
            >> teaching.... logic... are definitely part of the point, within a
            >> personification (the term Torah also does not impart that notion of
            >> personification intended by the text).
            >
            > Do you think the author of John would have translated "Logos" into
            > "Word"? I sometimes think he may have used Holy Spirit instead.

            We are overlooking the second meaning of Logos here. It could as
            easily be translated at Idea, instead of Word, really the Idea in the
            Word, and then it makes better sense. I'm not so sure John (the
            Evangelist) had that developed a trinitarian viewpoint. He seem more
            Neo-Platonic.

            >> To go on to John's point. What you describe, John, is pantheism.
            >> Pantheism is not something the historic Gnostics believed in, nor
            >> is it supported in Gnostic texts that I am aware of. There IS,
            >> though, a notion of the divine within mankind that could look on
            >> the surface to be pantheistic. It may seem like quibbling to you
            >> for me to point out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God
            >> IS man". Still, the difference is important to our understanding of
            >> the intent of Gnostic writings.
            >>
            >
            > It's a very important point. Gnosticism describes the human
            > condition as being alienated from the Logos. A pantheists would tend
            > to say that all is God, so that it is impossible to alienated from
            > God.

            This is basically true, Gnostics were not classical pantheists at all.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • lady_caritas
            ... Word, ... Still, ... of ... Okay, more quibbling. :-) To backtrack a bit here, PMCV made a distinction between two statements: God is IN man and God IS
            Message 5 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Penndragon" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
              > MM Wayne
              >
              > Thought ya might like the following quote
              >
              > MP
              > Penn
              >
              > --
              > First there is Brahman, Lord of all, with whom is the Word, and the
              Word,
              > verily, is Brahman.
              >
              > Rig Veda
              >
              >
              >
              > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
              wrote:
              > > >It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
              > > > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man".
              Still,
              > > > the difference is important to our understanding of the intent
              of
              > > > Gnostic writings.
              > > >
              > > > PMCV
              > >
              > > It is not Quibbling, it is significantly, Muy, Importante.
              > >
              > > The Word is God, God is the Word.
              > >
              > > Two separate and distinctly Different Statements.
              > >


              Okay, more quibbling. :-)

              To backtrack a bit here, PMCV made a distinction between two
              statements: "God is IN man" and "God IS man."

              I do see a difference there.

              Now, Wayne said: "The Word is God, God is the Word," which he
              designated as two distinctly different statements.

              How so? Word=God, and God=Word? I don't see the same distinction in
              this comparison.


              Cari
            • Wayne
              ... intent ... in ... I may not be clear in my post. If not I will try again. The Word is God. God is and is not the Word. The Law, The Word, it doesn t matter
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                wrote:

                > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > > >It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
                > > > > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man".
                > Still,
                > > > > the difference is important to our understanding of the
                intent
                > of
                > > > > Gnostic writings.
                > > > >
                > > > > PMCV
                > > >
                > > > It is not Quibbling, it is significantly, Muy, Importante.
                > > >
                > > > The Word is God, God is the Word.
                > > >
                > > > Two separate and distinctly Different Statements.
                > > >
                >
                >
                > Okay, more quibbling. :-)
                >
                > To backtrack a bit here, PMCV made a distinction between two
                > statements: "God is IN man" and "God IS man."
                >
                > I do see a difference there.
                >
                > Now, Wayne said: "The Word is God, God is the Word," which he
                > designated as two distinctly different statements.
                >
                > How so? Word=God, and God=Word? I don't see the same distinction
                in
                > this comparison.
                >
                >
                > Cari


                I may not be clear in my post.
                If not I will try again.

                The Word is God.
                God is and is not the Word.

                The Law, The Word, it doesn't matter which came First, neither
                one is a Material, a Physical, Reality, The Word, The Law these two
                are the same, of the same source, Singularity.

                The Word, God, The Law; it is very important which comes First;
                the Chicken or the Egg.

                The Word is God, The Word is the subject of the sentence with the
                Name God used as a descriptive Noun, adjective.

                God is the Word, God, becomes the subject of the sentence, an En-
                Graven Image, the name of a person, place, thing, or Force, with The
                Word being the adjective, descriptive of God.

                The Word is God if God is descriptive of the Word.
                The Word is not God if God is not descriptive of the Word.

                The Infinite as an adjective, is not a Name, is the Image of Nothing.
                The Infinite as a Noun, Name, the image of a person, place, thing, or
                force, the subject, is an En-Graven Image, a False Face.

                To Speak of God is to give a Name to, to define, give a Face to, the
                nameless cause of the Heavens and the Earth.

                In the Beginning, in a Time before Time began, before the moment of
                Creation, the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, was without Form,
                Void, and there was Darkness upon The Face of the Deep.

                If God is the Name of Nothing, If God is not a Name, If God is not a
                reality that is Readily apparent, is without form, void, Emptiness,
                if God is Dark Matter, the Darkness upon the Face of the Deep, if God
                is relative, subject to No Name, to Nothing, unmeasurable, Infinite,
                then God could be the Word, The Law, the Single True Nature of the
                Universe, the Heavens and the Earth, the Reality of First Cause, The
                Law of Singularity.
              • Ginosko
                MM Pneumen That doesn t preclude alienation however. At least not as a state of mind ;) MP Penn -- Abide not with dualism, Carefully avoid pursuing it; As soon
                Message 7 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  MM Pneumen

                  That doesn't preclude alienation however. At least not as a state of mind ;)

                  MP
                  Penn

                  --
                  Abide not with dualism, Carefully avoid pursuing it; As
                  soon as you have right and wrong, Confusion ensues, and
                  Mind' is lost.

                  Zen Buddhism


                  > > Logos, as we all know, is often translated as "Word". The problems
                  > > with that translation are too numerous to deal with in a short post.
                  > > The word "Logos" was one used in mystery traditions, and it has a
                  > > wide range of concepts it is meant to impart. Study, teaching....
                  > > logic... are definately part of the point, within a personification
                  > > (the term Torah also does not impart that notion of personification
                  > > intended by the text).
                  >
                  > Do you think the author of John would have translated "Logos" into
                  > "Word"? I sometimes think he may have used Holy Spirit instead.
                  >
                  > >
                  > > To go on to John's point. What you describe, John, is pantheism.
                  > > Pantheism is not something the historic Gnostics believed in, nor is
                  > > it supported in Gnostic texts that I am aware of. There IS, though,
                  > > a notion of the divine within mankind that could look on the surface
                  > > to be pantheistic. It may seem like quibbling to you for me to point
                  > > out the difference between "God is IN man" and "God IS man". Still,
                  > > the difference is important to our understanding of the intent of
                  > > Gnostic writings.
                  > >
                  >
                  > It's a very important point. Gnosticism describes the human condition
                  > as being alienated from the Logos. A pantheists would tend to say that
                  > all is God, so that it is impossible to alienated from God.
                  >
                  > > PMCV
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "John Gilbert" <john2002@a...>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > Gentlepeople,
                  > > >
                  > > > Penn posited: "In the beginning was the Torah (teaching), And the
                  > > Torah was
                  > > > with God, and the Torah was God."
                  > > >
                  >
                  >
                  > I don't think so. The Word or Logos of John is somethng far more
                  > fundamental than teachings or scripture. It is the original spirit in
                  > the universe from which all creation emanates. This is distinct from
                  > God the Creator of the Old Testament (the demiurge, to gnostics), who
                  > put up walls between humans and the Word when he created the flawed
                  > physical universe. The way to the Word, the divince spark, remains
                  > within man, and I believe it is closely related to our capacity to
                  > love. Perhaps the closest level to the Word is the Holy Spirit.
                  >
                  > > > My response is that in the beginning (everything) was, and
                  > > (everything) was
                  > > > with God, and (everything) was God. To this it can be added there
                  > > never was
                  > > > and is not now anything that is not God. This, to me, is the
                  > > fundamental
                  > > > Dogma of all Gnostics that God is everything and everything is God
                  > > by
                  > > > whatever name you wish to call Her, Him or It. From that
                  > > beginning rise all
                  > > > Gnostic Sects and indeed all spiritual paths.
                  > > >
                  >
                  > I think this is wrong. Firstly, Gnosticism has no dogmas. It has
                  > descriptions of the human condition that are somewhat fluid and make
                  > sense to those who find them useful. They can cetainly be taken for
                  > dogma, if one is inclined to interpret descriptions as prescriptions.
                  >
                  > For example, some take dictionaries as ultimate authorities on the
                  > spelling and meaning of words. I take them as a descriptive snapshot
                  > of how language is used at a given time. The same can be said for the
                  > myths and scriptures of Gnosticism.
                  >
                  > Gnosticism has quite a different starting point than dogma and creeds.
                  > Gnosticism has as its starting point the feeling that one is only
                  > partially connected to the Divine. It is not something one believes.
                  > It is something that is felt. The myths of Gnosticism illuminate that
                  > condition, and grants the Gnostic the perspective to rise above the
                  > alienation.
                  >
                  > I would go as far to say that Fundamentalism is the opposite of
                  > Gnosticism.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Gerry
                  Reply to Wayne s post #8435: Wayne, let s T R Y using your earlier example in another context for clarity: The Pope is John Paul II. John Paul II is the Pope.
                  Message 8 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Reply to Wayne’s post #8435:
                     
                    Wayne, let’s T R Y using your earlier example in another context for clarity:
                     
                    The Pope is John Paul II.
                    John Paul II is the Pope.
                     
                    The Pope is John Paul II, The Pope is the subject of the sentence with the Name John Paul II used as a descriptive Noun, adjective.
                     
                    John Paul II is the Pope, John Paul II, becomes the subject of the sentence, an En-Graven Image, the name of a person, place, thing, or Force, with The Pope being the adjective, descriptive of John Paul II.
                     
                    The Pope is John Paul II if John Paul II is descriptive of the Pope.
                    The Pope is not John Paul II if John Paul II is not descriptive of the Pope.
                     
                    Applied to another sentence, you can see the sort of problems this sort of reasoning leads to:
                     
                    “The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church” . . . ergo, by the absence of its Proper-Noun Complement, the Pope is NOT John Paul II.  Well, if this is the case, and the situation is thus, then why don’t we scream or make some sort of fuss to remove this impostor—oust him we must—from Vatican City where the trouble is brewin’ ’ere the Catholic faith is soon brought to ruin . . . , ruinous end, end of times, demise, chaotic disarray, the state of no longer existing, taken from visible to unrecognizable, lacking discernible characteristics, incomprehensible, lost in obscurity? 
                     
                    Of course, it may well be that Frankie Valli will have the last word:
                     
                    “Grease is the word
                    It's got groove it's got meaning
                    Grease is the time, is the place is the motion
                    Grease is the way we are feeling
                     
                    Grease is the word is the word is the word is the word . . . .”
                     
                  • Gerry
                    ... Ahhhh, I suppose that s why forms of to BE are among those verbs considered as linking in that they equate subject and complement. Thank you so much,
                    Message 9 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > . . . Word=God, and God=Word? I don't see the same distinction in
                      > this comparison.
                      >
                      >
                      > Cari



                      Ahhhh, I suppose that's why forms of "to BE" are among those verbs
                      considered as "linking" in that they equate subject and complement.

                      Thank you so much, Cari. In your case, maybe Bing Crosby will have
                      the last word:

                      "Sweet is the word for you . . . ." :-)


                      Gerry
                    • pmcvflag
                      Could you give some examples of the various meanings of Logos in Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism? Sincerely, Magusadeptus Well Magusadeptus, at first I was
                      Message 10 of 30 , Oct 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Could you give some examples of the various meanings of Logos in
                        Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism?

                        Sincerely,
                        Magusadeptus"

                        Well Magusadeptus, at first I was thinking you meant to ask about
                        translations, but sinse I had already given those in the post, I am
                        assuming you are asking for the more cosmological meanings?

                        Well, there are a few. Maybe instead of going through them, I can
                        just point them out for you to read? For Gnosticism, you can pick
                        out any number of books in the Nag Hammadi library, and you may find
                        some differences. For instance, in the Tripartite Tractate, the
                        Logos makes the Demiurge and works through him to create (Something
                        closer to Philo where the Logos IS the Demiurge). However, in the
                        Thought of Norea we see the Logos as the "Son" of the primal source
                        and the mother.

                        In some translations of Poimandres you will also see an emphasis
                        placed on the "Logos" that mounts the waters in the beginning.

                        I am not really sure if I am helping.

                        PMCV
                      • Wayne
                        ... of mind ;) ... Confucianism will do it to you every Time.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Oct 11, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Ginosko" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
                          > MM Pneumen
                          >
                          > That doesn't preclude alienation however. At least not as a state
                          of mind ;)
                          >
                          > MP
                          > Penn
                          >
                          > --
                          > Abide not with dualism, Carefully avoid pursuing it; As
                          > soon as you have right and wrong, Confusion ensues, and
                          > Mind' is lost.
                          >
                          > Zen Buddhism

                          Confucianism will do it to you every Time.
                        • Wayne
                          ... of mind ;) ... Confucianism will do it to you every time.
                          Message 12 of 30 , Oct 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Ginosko" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
                            > MM Pneumen
                            >
                            > That doesn't preclude alienation however. At least not as a state
                            of mind ;)
                            >
                            > MP
                            > Penn
                            >
                            > --
                            > Abide not with dualism, Carefully avoid pursuing it; As
                            > soon as you have right and wrong, Confusion ensues, and
                            > Mind' is lost.
                            >
                            > Zen Buddhism


                            Confucianism will do it to you every time.
                          • Magusadeptus
                            Hello PMCV, ... Yes, how Logos is traslated and interpreted in the Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism, especially in the cosmological sense. ... find ... You
                            Message 13 of 30 , Oct 11, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello PMCV,


                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:

                              >
                              > [Well Magusadeptus, at first I was thinking you meant to ask about
                              > translations, but sinse I had already given those in the post, I am
                              > assuming you are asking for the more cosmological meanings?]

                              Yes, how Logos is traslated and interpreted in the Mystery
                              Traditions and Gnosticism, especially in the cosmological sense.
                              >
                              > [Well, there are a few. Maybe instead of going through them, I can
                              > just point them out for you to read? For Gnosticism, you can pick
                              > out any number of books in the Nag Hammadi library, and you may
                              find
                              > some differences. For instance, in the Tripartite Tractate, the
                              > Logos makes the Demiurge and works through him to create (Something
                              > closer to Philo where the Logos IS the Demiurge). However, in the
                              > Thought of Norea we see the Logos as the "Son" of the primal source
                              > and the mother.]
                              >
                              > [In some translations of Poimandres you will also see an emphasis
                              > placed on the "Logos" that mounts the waters in the beginning.]
                              >
                              > [I am not really sure if I am helping.]

                              You are always helpful PMCV. Thanks for the references, I'll look
                              into them.
                              Here are some definitions of Logos that I have found. Do any of
                              these concur with your understanding of the definitions or
                              interpretations of Logos in the Mystery Traditions or Gnosticism?

                              Logos

                              Primordial spirit of reason. Greek. A concept promoted by the Stoics,
                              who perceived Logos as the mind of Jupiter, but more generally
                              recognized as the divine essence from which all deities arise. Philo
                              of Alexandria apportioned human characteristics to Logos. The Gnostic
                              Christian Valentinus, identified Logos as the word coming from the
                              mind of the father. The Christian father clement of Alexandria
                              claimed it to be the first principle of the universe, while Origen
                              perceived it as the principle embodied in the flesh by Jesus Christ.
                              Page 147, Encyclopedia of Gods, Over 2,500 Deities of the World,
                              Michael Jordan

                              Logos (Greek, the "Word") – according to Philo, Logos is "the angel
                              that appeared to Hagar, the cloud at the Red Sea, one of the 3 angels
                              that appeared to Abraham (at Mamre, as Justin Martyr also taught),
                              the divine form that changed the name of Jacob to Israel at Peniel."
                              In rabbinic mysticism, Metatron is the personified Logos. Michael and
                              the Messiah have also been identified with the concept, as has the
                              Holy Ghost. [Rf. Muller, History of Jewish Mysticism.] Philo calls
                              Logos, (reason) "the image of God, His Angel" ; also "the Oldest
                              Angel, who is as though it were the Angel-chief of many names; for he
                              is called Dominion, and the Name of God." [Rf. Mead, Thrice-greatest
                              Hermes I, pp. 161-162]
                              Page 175, A Dictionary of Angels, Including The Fallen Angels, Gustav
                              Davidson

                              Logos The Logos is the light and the life, at once spiritual and
                              material, which combats both death and night. It is the antithesis of
                              disorder and chaos, of evil and darkness. It is also cognate with the
                              word and with thought.
                              Page 191, A Dictionary of Symbols, J.E. Cirlot

                              "Here the two types of mysticism are clearly named. One type is to
                              be "worthy of the Creator," which in the context clearly means to
                              become worthy to be identified with, to take on the characteristics
                              of, the Creator through mystical union and transformation. This is
                              the supreme experience, Philo's highest ambition. Second best to
                              that, in the cosmic mysticism one takes on in one's mind the pattern
                              of the Son of God, the cosmos, and so has the intercession of that
                              Son with God, to the remission of one's sins and the gaining of all
                              other spiritual gifts. The conception of the microcosm emerges in on
                              of its earliest expressions, but man is a microcosm not because of
                              his material form, or because the parts of his body resemble the
                              universe as the reflection of the zodiac or of the later Sephiroth.
                              He resembles the cosmos in the Platonic sense, in that the
                              worshiper's mind appropriates the Form of the world, is transformed
                              into the cosmic pattern. This Form is the Logos itself, as the
                              reality of the material cosmos is the Logos present in it. As the
                              Logos thus clothed in matter, the Son of God, turns in worship toward
                              God, similarly the worshiper can become like the universe, a
                              microcosm, as his mind becomes one with the Logos-Form. With that
                              Logos-Form he is fused in such a mysticism that the cosmos, his type
                              and ultimately himself, intercedes for him as he joins in the comic
                              worship now by his own right: for he is the replica of the universe,
                              its very self. This the High Priest teaches men, and represents to
                              them as he wears this cosmic robe in the Temple that symbolizes the
                              cosmos. The High Priest in putting on the cosmos, and becoming in his
                              robes the Logos in the Cosmos, typifies the ideal (by this cosmic-
                              mystic formulation) for every worshiper. The High Priest only shows
                              the way for us all…"
                              Page 165, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Erwin R.
                              Goodenough, edited and abridged by Jacob Neusner.


                              Sincerely,
                              Magusadeptus
                            • Mike Leavitt
                              Hello Wayne ... Confusionism or Confucianism? Zen there s what he quoted. :-) Perhaps we should remember, that even in Gnosticism, the Unknown Father is above
                              Message 14 of 30 , Oct 11, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Wayne

                                On 11-Oct-03, you wrote:

                                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Ginosko" <Ginosko@H...> wrote:
                                >> MM Pneumen
                                >>
                                >> That doesn't preclude alienation however. At least not as a state
                                > of mind ;)
                                >>
                                >> MP
                                >> Penn
                                >>
                                >> --
                                >> Abide not with dualism, Carefully avoid pursuing it; As
                                >> soon as you have right and wrong, Confusion ensues, and
                                >> Mind' is lost.
                                >>
                                >> Zen Buddhism
                                >
                                > Confucianism will do it to you every Time.

                                Confusionism or Confucianism? Zen there's what he quoted. :-)
                                Perhaps we should remember, that even in Gnosticism, the Unknown
                                Father is above the opposites.

                                Regards
                                --
                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                              • Penndragon
                                MM PMCV Well, Spirit and Primal Thought/Cause are two of the main ones I can think of at the moment. In this case Logos = Pneuma = Ruach on various levels.
                                Message 15 of 30 , Oct 11, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  MM PMCV

                                  Well, Spirit and Primal Thought/Cause are two of the main ones I can think
                                  of at the moment. In this case Logos = Pneuma = Ruach on various levels.
                                  Logos as the Animata behind creation is another ;)

                                  MP
                                  Penn

                                  --
                                  But the soul must abandon her own being. This is where the death that is
                                  spiritual begins. If the soul is to undergo this death, then she must take
                                  leave of herself and all things, holding herself and all things to be as
                                  insignificant as they were before they existed ... I do not mean that the
                                  being of the soul falls into nothingness as she was before she was created,
                                  rather we should understand this cessation to be the eradication of
                                  possessing and having.

                                  Meister Eckhart


                                  > "Could you give some examples of the various meanings of Logos in
                                  > Mystery Traditions and Gnosticism?
                                  >
                                  > Sincerely,
                                  > Magusadeptus"
                                  >
                                  > Well Magusadeptus, at first I was thinking you meant to ask about
                                  > translations, but sinse I had already given those in the post, I am
                                  > assuming you are asking for the more cosmological meanings?
                                  >
                                  > Well, there are a few. Maybe instead of going through them, I can
                                  > just point them out for you to read? For Gnosticism, you can pick
                                  > out any number of books in the Nag Hammadi library, and you may find
                                  > some differences. For instance, in the Tripartite Tractate, the
                                  > Logos makes the Demiurge and works through him to create (Something
                                  > closer to Philo where the Logos IS the Demiurge). However, in the
                                  > Thought of Norea we see the Logos as the "Son" of the primal source
                                  > and the mother.
                                  >
                                  > In some translations of Poimandres you will also see an emphasis
                                  > placed on the "Logos" that mounts the waters in the beginning.
                                  >
                                  > I am not really sure if I am helping.
                                  >
                                  > PMCV
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Wayne
                                  ... with the Name John Paul II used as a descriptive Noun, adjective. ... the sentence, an En-Graven Image, the name of a person, place, thing, or Force, with
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Oct 24, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                    > Reply to Wayne's post #8435:
                                    >
                                    > Wayne, let's T R Y using your earlier example in another context
                                    for clarity:
                                    >
                                    > The Pope is John Paul II.
                                    > John Paul II is the Pope.
                                    >
                                    > The Pope is John Paul II, The Pope is the subject of the sentence
                                    with the Name John Paul II used as a descriptive Noun, adjective.
                                    >
                                    > John Paul II is the Pope, John Paul II, becomes the subject of
                                    the sentence, an En-Graven Image, the name of a person, place, thing,
                                    or Force, with The Pope being the adjective, descriptive of John Paul
                                    II.
                                    >
                                    > The Pope is John Paul II if John Paul II is descriptive of the
                                    Pope.
                                    > The Pope is not John Paul II if John Paul II is not descriptive
                                    of the Pope.
                                    >
                                    > Applied to another sentence, you can see the sort of problems this
                                    sort of reasoning leads to:
                                    >
                                    > "The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church" . . . ergo, by the
                                    absence of its Proper-Noun Complement, the Pope is NOT John Paul II.
                                    Well, if this is the case, and the situation is thus, then why don't
                                    we scream or make some sort of fuss to remove this impostor-oust him
                                    we must-from Vatican City where the trouble is brewin' 'ere the
                                    Catholic faith is soon brought to ruin . . . , ruinous end, end of
                                    times, demise, chaotic disarray, the state of no longer existing,
                                    taken from visible to unrecognizable, lacking discernible
                                    characteristics, incomprehensible, lost in obscurity?
                                    >
                                    > Of course, it may well be that Frankie Valli will have the last
                                    word:
                                    >
                                    > "Grease is the word
                                    > It's got groove it's got meaning
                                    > Grease is the time, is the place is the motion
                                    > Grease is the way we are feeling
                                    >
                                    > Grease is the word is the word is the word is the word . . . ."


                                    The word is, the word is, the word is, the word is, No Name.


                                    The Word that is God is not a proper noun, Name.
                                    If God is the Word, God is the subject of the sentence is a proper
                                    noun, name.

                                    The Pope, the Catholic Church, John Paul II, Grease are of course
                                    words but they are also proper nouns, names.

                                    "Grease is a Proper noun, name, is not without form void.
                                    > It's got groove it's got meaning
                                    > Grease is the time, is the place is the motion
                                    > Grease is the way we are feeling
                                    >
                                    > Grease is the word is the word is the word is the word . . . ."



                                    The Cause of the Heavens and the Earth, the Reality of First Cause,
                                    the Unborn, the Uncreated, is Nameless, has no name, can not be
                                    spoken of, defined, is without dimension, without form, void.


                                    You can not compare two Words that are each a proper Noun, name, with
                                    two Words only one of which is a proper noun, name, the second word
                                    not being a proper noun, name, the name of nothing.

                                    The leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope, is John Paul II.
                                    The Pope, the Leader of the Catholic Church, is John Paul II.
                                    John Paul II, the Leader of the Catholic Church, is Pope.
                                    Pope John Paul II is the Leader of the Catholic Church.

                                    You can mix up any way you choose, Pope, Leader, John Paul II, the
                                    Catholic Church, and although it may not always sound good it is
                                    proper English, because you are comparing apples to apples.

                                    Where is the comparison in a Word that is a Proper Noun, Name, the
                                    Name of Something that has dimension and a word that is defined as
                                    having no dimension, to be without form, void, a Word that is, the
                                    Name of Nothing, a Word that is not a proper noun, name; you can not
                                    compare apples and orange.

                                    I'm wrong, you can if you want to.

                                    If God is nameless, can not be spoken of, if God is not a Proper
                                    noun, Name, if God is just Word that is without form, void, without
                                    dimension, then the Word God can not be the subject of sentence.

                                    God is not, can not be, the Word, the Word is God.

                                    If you make God the subject of the sentence, if you speak of God as
                                    if God were a name you create an en-Graven Image, a Material Reality,
                                    you make God a Manifest Physical Reality, you give God a Personality,
                                    a Persona, a False Face, God becomes a facade.

                                    If a Word that is not a proper noun, name, if No Name is God then God
                                    can be the Word that is not a Name, No Name is God, God is No Name,
                                    God is Nameless, Can not be spoken of.


                                    The Word, is the Holy Grail, is without Dimension.----->O
                                  • Gerry
                                    ... Wayne, as far as I can personally vouch for, you first introduced your topic of No Name at another site back in the summer of 2000. On the same day of
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Oct 25, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > The word is, the word is, the word is, the word is, No Name....
                                      >



                                      Wayne, as far as I can personally vouch for, you first introduced
                                      your topic of "No Name" at another site back in the summer of 2000.
                                      On the same day of that post, you received replies offering
                                      alternative terminology (with explanations) for the concept you were
                                      trying to address; "Ein Sof" comes to mind. After numerous
                                      inconsistencies in your posts, you were told two days later that your
                                      theories needed "critical perspective." Well, almost 3½ years later,
                                      that advice still holds true.

                                      Face it——We won't be rethinking English grammar to suit your fancy.

                                      By my reckoning, for something which you repeatedly claim "can not be
                                      spoken of" [sic], you managed to speak of `God,' `Word,' `No
                                      Name,' `Nameless,' `the Cause of the Heavens and the Earth,' `the
                                      Reality of First Cause,' `the Unborn,' and `the Uncreated' in excess
                                      of 3 dozen times in that one post——and that was strictly counting
                                      those instances occurring as proper nouns.

                                      Here's the thing, Wayne. That other group had a very broad focus.
                                      In fact, it seems to have moved over the years from spiritual
                                      esoterica to everything from porno spammers to evangelical
                                      proselytizers to a Newage dumping ground. That is NOT going to
                                      happen at THIS group as we have a much more limited scope (along with
                                      moderators who wish to keep it that way).

                                      It's about "Gnosticism" after all. Among a group of folks who, to at
                                      least some degree, relate to traditional Gnostics, excessive
                                      dissertations on the meaning of "ineffable" should be largely
                                      unnecessary. We're here to discuss certain topics, and that's going
                                      to continue. Those discussions cannot take place if we're not
                                      allowed to use words to represent certain concepts. From now on, if
                                      you see something mentioned during the course of our discussions that
                                      you think shouldn't be spoken of, feel free to stare at the screen——
                                      and ponder the silence of the Infinite.

                                      Given that you still seem to be intent on discussing this subject
                                      after all this time, you could even create your own group. I just
                                      can't imagine how productive the group would be when you seem so
                                      adamant that its topic is something about which nothing should be
                                      spoken.

                                      Gerry
                                    • Wayne
                                      ... Just one question. Rethinking English grammar to suit my fancy?
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Oct 29, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        >> Face it——We won't be rethinking English grammar to suit your fancy.
                                        > >
                                        > Gerry

                                        Just one question.

                                        Rethinking English grammar to suit my fancy?
                                      • Gerry
                                        ... Your philosophical argument about the ineffability of God is distinct from the rules of English. The word God *is* a proper noun whether it suits your
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Oct 30, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Just one question.
                                          >
                                          > Rethinking English grammar to suit my fancy?




                                          A number of examples come to mind, but consider the following:


                                          >>...if God is not a Proper noun,....<<


                                          Your philosophical argument about the ineffability of God is distinct
                                          from the rules of English. The word "God" *is* a proper noun whether
                                          it suits your need for a valid premise or not.


                                          >>...then the Word God can not be the subject of sentence.

                                          God is not, can not be, the Word, the Word is God.<<


                                          In the space of two lines, you've concluded that "God" cannot be the
                                          subject of a sentence--and then you proceeded to use it as a
                                          subject. You've then ignored the relationship between subjects and
                                          complements:

                                          the Word = God
                                          God = the Word

                                          By what you've said, I take it that you would only agree with the
                                          first of those two equations, but *both* are valid in English, and
                                          unless someone can come up with a really good example otherwise, I'd
                                          say that it probably holds up in mathematics as well.

                                          I actually enjoy a lot of the thoughts behind your posts, Wayne, but
                                          your writing style is better suited to poetic usage. A good example
                                          of that is when you compose something like a run-on sentence the
                                          length of its own paragraph, building suspense for the readers
                                          through one modifying clause after another, only to disappoint them
                                          when they see that it simply dead-ends with no predicate. Again,
                                          that's fine for figurative representations but not for proposing
                                          technical definitions or determining proper language usage.

                                          Gerry
                                        • Wayne
                                          ... distinct ... whether ... the ... I d ... theorem A proposition proved by logical deduction from one or more initial premises. Although geometrical theorems
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Oct 30, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > > Just one question.
                                            > >
                                            > > Rethinking English grammar to suit my fancy?
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > A number of examples come to mind, but consider the following:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > >>...if God is not a Proper noun,....<<
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Your philosophical argument about the ineffability of God is
                                            distinct
                                            > from the rules of English. The word "God" *is* a proper noun
                                            whether
                                            > it suits your need for a valid premise or not.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > >>...then the Word God can not be the subject of sentence.
                                            >
                                            > God is not, can not be, the Word, the Word is God.<<
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > In the space of two lines, you've concluded that "God" cannot be
                                            the
                                            > subject of a sentence--and then you proceeded to use it as a
                                            > subject. You've then ignored the relationship between subjects and
                                            > complements:
                                            >
                                            > the Word = God
                                            > God = the Word
                                            >
                                            > By what you've said, I take it that you would only agree with the
                                            > first of those two equations, but *both* are valid in English, and
                                            > unless someone can come up with a really good example otherwise,
                                            I'd
                                            > say that it probably holds up in mathematics as well.




                                            theorem

                                            A proposition proved by logical deduction from one or more initial
                                            premises. Although geometrical theorems are the most widely known,
                                            theorems exist in all branches of mathematics. A simple theorem which
                                            is proved and then used towards the proof of another theorem is known
                                            as a lemma. If the theorem is 'statement p implies statement q ', the
                                            converse is 'statement q implies statement p '. The converse of a
                                            theorem is not always true. For example, if two triangles are
                                            congruent, they are equal in area, but two triangles that are equal
                                            in area are not necessarily congruent.


                                            Taken From: Webster's World Encyclopedia 2001. Published by Webster
                                            Publishing, 2000. Copyright Webster Publishing, and/or contributors.


                                            > Gerry
                                          • Gerry
                                            ... which ... known ... the ... Wayne, I m not a mathematician, but I didn t just fall off the truck, either. There are three problems that I see right off
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Oct 31, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > theorem
                                              >
                                              > A proposition proved by logical deduction from one or more initial
                                              > premises. Although geometrical theorems are the most widely known,
                                              > theorems exist in all branches of mathematics. A simple theorem
                                              which
                                              > is proved and then used towards the proof of another theorem is
                                              known
                                              > as a lemma. If the theorem is 'statement p implies statement q ',
                                              the
                                              > converse is 'statement q implies statement p '. The converse of a
                                              > theorem is not always true. For example, if two triangles are
                                              > congruent, they are equal in area, but two triangles that are equal
                                              > in area are not necessarily congruent.
                                              >



                                              Wayne, I'm not a mathematician, but I didn't just fall off the truck,
                                              either. There are three problems that I see right off the bat with
                                              what you've found (regarding its application to the previous
                                              argument):

                                              • It assumes that statement Q is valid from the start (yours was not).
                                              • After the alleged premise, we're relating terms, not statements.
                                              • That relation involves equality, not congruence.

                                              Should we rewrite scripture, perhaps, to say that "the Word exhibits
                                              similarity to God"? Looks like a lot of work to go to when one might
                                              more simply revise his argument (or at least give it a rest).

                                              Gerry
                                            • Mike Leavitt
                                              Hello Gerry ... Not to mention that his argument is neo-Pythagorean. :-) (sorry, couldn t resist). Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Oct 31, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hello Gerry

                                                On 31-Oct-03, you wrote:

                                                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                                >>
                                                >> theorem
                                                >>
                                                >> A proposition proved by logical deduction from one or more initial
                                                >> premises. Although geometrical theorems are the most widely known,
                                                >> theorems exist in all branches of mathematics. A simple theorem
                                                > which
                                                >> is proved and then used towards the proof of another theorem is
                                                > known
                                                >> as a lemma. If the theorem is 'statement p implies statement q ',
                                                > the
                                                >> converse is 'statement q implies statement p '. The converse of a
                                                >> theorem is not always true. For example, if two triangles are
                                                >> congruent, they are equal in area, but two triangles that are equal
                                                >> in area are not necessarily congruent.
                                                >>
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Wayne, I'm not a mathematician, but I didn't just fall off the
                                                > truck, either. There are three problems that I see right off the bat
                                                > with what you've found (regarding its application to the previous
                                                > argument):
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Should we rewrite scripture, perhaps, to say that "the Word exhibits
                                                > similarity to God"? Looks like a lot of work to go to when one might
                                                > more simply revise his argument (or at least give it a rest).
                                                >
                                                > Gerry

                                                Not to mention that his argument is neo-Pythagorean. :-) (sorry,
                                                couldn't resist).

                                                Regards
                                                --
                                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                              • Wayne
                                                ... initial ... known, ... equal ... truck, ... not). ... exhibits ... might ... Revise my argument? What can I say, the man that, knows (in the biblical
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Oct 31, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                                  > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Wayne" <waynel@i...> wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > > theorem
                                                  > >
                                                  > > A proposition proved by logical deduction from one or more
                                                  initial
                                                  > > premises. Although geometrical theorems are the most widely
                                                  known,
                                                  > > theorems exist in all branches of mathematics. A simple theorem
                                                  > which
                                                  > > is proved and then used towards the proof of another theorem is
                                                  > known
                                                  > > as a lemma. If the theorem is 'statement p implies statement q ',
                                                  > the
                                                  > > converse is 'statement q implies statement p '. The converse of a
                                                  > > theorem is not always true. For example, if two triangles are
                                                  > > congruent, they are equal in area, but two triangles that are
                                                  equal
                                                  > > in area are not necessarily congruent.
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Wayne, I'm not a mathematician, but I didn't just fall off the
                                                  truck,
                                                  > either. There are three problems that I see right off the bat with
                                                  > what you've found (regarding its application to the previous
                                                  > argument):
                                                  >
                                                  > • It assumes that statement Q is valid from the start (yours was
                                                  not).
                                                  > • After the alleged premise, we're relating terms, not statements.
                                                  > • That relation involves equality, not congruence.
                                                  >
                                                  > Should we rewrite scripture, perhaps, to say that "the Word
                                                  exhibits
                                                  > similarity to God"? Looks like a lot of work to go to when one
                                                  might
                                                  > more simply revise his argument (or at least give it a rest).
                                                  >
                                                  > Gerry


                                                  Revise my argument?

                                                  What can I say, the man that, knows (in the biblical sense), has
                                                  knowledge of Namable God has carved, submits to the Reality of a
                                                  graven image, is wed to, is one with a False God, a God created in
                                                  his own personal Image of what he Imagines God to be.
                                                • Wayne
                                                  ... Did you know that when the two that are One become the one that is Two that it creates a Temporal problem for the One that is Two, differentiated, of Two
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Oct 31, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:

                                                    > Not to mention that his argument is neo-Pythagorean. :-) (sorry,
                                                    > couldn't resist).
                                                    >
                                                    > Regards
                                                    > --
                                                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                                                    Did you know that when the two that are One become the one
                                                    that is Two that it creates a Temporal problem for the
                                                    One that is Two, differentiated, of Two Minds.

                                                    The One that is two looses touch with the Reality of the Moment,
                                                    the Here Now, Time, the material world of reality as it is.

                                                    As a Space Cadet, the One that is Two, not being able to keep
                                                    even one foot planted firmly on the ground, becomes lost in
                                                    Space-Time, the Twice-Light Zone, becomes Irrational.

                                                    Man's, One, Single, Only, Salvation is to become a continuum, the
                                                    Hole of a Single Reality->O, One, a singularity, causing the two that
                                                    are One to be greater than the sum total of its parts.


                                                    Hermes Pathagoras Trismegistus.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.