Re: Valentinian anthropology
> > lightpotential wrote:creation
> > >
> > > Indeed it is interesting to consider, how would one know light
> > > without darkness? I do think that there are entities in
> > thattotally
> > > do partake of only one of these. That is, beings that are
> > atfrom
> > > one with the 'concept' of love, who simply do not know of
> > > and also, beings of such malevalence that are so completely
> > ignorant
> > > of goodness. It is possible for some entities to know only one
> > > quality, without the other, I think. We humans are in fact in a
> > most
> > > interesting state of being in that we can contemplate both,
> > > a 'stand-off' position and choose, through our actions, whetherlove,
> > > manifest as beings of light or darkness. This is one of our
> > essential
> > > characteristics, I think.
> > >
> > Hi LightPotential,
> > In contemplating beings that are at one with the 'concept' of
> > or beings that are completely ignorant of goodness, how does onenot:
> > to understand either one without an understanding of both?
> > for example, if i saw a being of complete love, part of my
> > understanding and recognition is informed by what i know it is
> > ignorance of goodness,malevalence,and darkness, and this, inHi LightPotential,
> > to what i understand and recognize as it's qualities which are
> > light,compassion.
i was trying to explain what i meant in context to what i had wrote
in my previous post, so i guess we agree on that point, color me
> You essentially raise the very point that I made myself, which wasin
> the uniqueness of the human condition, in that we, as it even says
> the Bible, can know good and evil. If we recall through, prior tothe
> event of eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were in a state ofINNOCENCE.
well, the Gnostics seem to have a very different idea of this event.
in the text from the Nag Hammadi Library called "On the Origin of the
World" it says:
"Then came the wisest of all creatures, who was called Beast. And
when he saw the likeness of their mother Eve he said to her,"What did
God say to you? Was it 'Do not eat from the knowledge'? She said "He
said not only 'Do not eat from it", but, 'Do not touch, lest you
die." He said to her, "Do not be afraid. In death you shall not die.
For he knows that when you eat from it, your intellect will become
sober and you will come to be like gods, recognizing the difference
that obtains between evil men and good ones. Indeed, it was in
jealousy that he said this to you, so that you would not eat from it."
after they eat of the tree of knowledge it says:
"Then their intellect became open. For when they had eaten, the light
of knowledge had shown upon them. When they clothed themselves with
shame, they knew they were naked of knowledge."
well, then the authorities freak out and curse them, because they are
powerless. however, they set out to test Adam's knowledge.
it goes on to say:
"They became troubled because Adam had recovered from all the trial.
They assembled and laid plans, and they said, "Behold Adam! He has
come to be like one of us, so that he knows the difference between
light and darkness. Now, perhaps he will be deceived, as in the case
of the Tree of Knowledge, and also will come to the Tree of Life and
eat from it and become immortal, and becaome lord, and despise us and
disdain us and all our glory! Then he will denounce us along with our
universe. Come, let us expel him from Paradise, down to the land from
which he was taken, so that he might not be able to recognize
anything better than we can."
> Obviously, from a gnostic perspective more could be read into thisdo
> story, for 'God' in this example can be interpreted to be the
> Demiurge. However, be that as it may, the idea that I am trying to
> put forward is that beings of love can be innocence in their
> essential nature, such that they do not comprehend evil, and
> likewise, a truly malevalent being acts blindly, because they too
> not comprehend goodness. In both instances, such beings are notable
> to consider or deliberate on such matters. Humans on the otherhand,
> are. I believe that we possess a certain capability that does allowthem
> us to contemplate both natures. We can contrast them, as we see
> manifested in the world. Some beings, I believe truly do exist,that
> do not possess this ability.LightPotential, i guess i don't quite understand what you mean by
beings other than humans, are you speaking of beings that have
influence upon humans in their essential natures? Spirits and Demons?
- --- In email@example.com, "eyeambetty" <eyeambetty@y...>
> Hello Gerry,
> previous to any spiritual context, i thought my inclination towards
> introspection, and preference for solitude were products of my
> upbringing. i've always felt alienated from others, painfully so
> my family, i turned inward and developed a relationship with myselfamount
> early on. i don't think anyone escapes internalizing a certain
> of the "darkness", meaning those raging, critical voices thatout
> manifest out of false concepts, that have been shaped by external
> influences during the development of our consciousness. it seems
> of necessity, that i began to question and reflect in order tocombat
> those insidious voices that prodded at me to do this or that inorder
> to be good, worthy, lovable and on and on... all i found waspain
> emptiness in those pursuits, but the experiences were valuable
> lessons because of the awareness i had. in my twenties, i began a
> process of going thru all the garbage, finding the sources of my
> and suffering, alongside new experiences, really distinguishingrevising
> between my true self and my false self. studying fine art, and
> becoming an artist is what gave me a model for expanding and
> my concepts and a voice/tool with which to express/communicate myunwittingly
> so now in my thirties, having created a space inside, and
> prepared myself to recieve a series of transformational experienceshave
> that eventually lead me to find Gnosticism, i can't help but think
> that i was always headed in this direction. however, if you would
> have told me 2 or 3 years ago this is where i would be, i would
> surely laughed.And a perfectly topical testimonial it was, Betty. :-)
> sorry, i didn't mean to write a testimonial...
I very much relate to much of your experience, although for me, I
don't think the introspection and preference for solitude were as
much products of my upbringing as simply genetic. Two other members
of my immediate family are the same way, and I see numerous examples
in the extended family as well.
Your concluding remarks, also, I find have an especially familiar
ring. In many ways, I can look back over the course of my life and
see how differently my views have changed, but at the same time, even
though I would have had no idea what Gnosticism was all about way
back then, I feel as though there was always something "different" in
the way I saw things, and that I was always being drawn in this
direction. Odd, since my somewhat conventional upbringing was never
so steeped in the mainstream as to ever make me really comfortable
with orthodox beliefs, and yet, those beliefs that I *did* have
weren't exactly like what we're discussing here today, eithersort
of like realizing that deep within there must have always existed a
gemstone in the rough. Chipping away at the crust around it takes us
back to Mike's comment about the "refined perception."