Re: Evil and mind cessation
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gavin Riggott" <wu@n...> wrote:
> > If what Scott and many teachers say is true: that we must STOPTHINKING,
> transcend the mental faculty, become liberated from thediscriminator and
> projector of illusion: the mind, then could it be correctly statedthat the
> mind is a contributor to evil and so also loss of LIFE?I don't think it's as simple as stopping thinking for everyone. For
> Why must we stop thinking? I don't understand.
> Gavin Riggott
instance, the _Gospel of Philip_, which identifies lack of
acquaintance as "the mother of all evils," states, "Let each of us,
too, burrow for the root of evil that is within, and root it up from
his or her heart. It will be rooted up when it is recognized." At
least according to this one author, this implies an active process,
does it not? Mentation allows us to recognize and interpret our
transcendence. I haven't seen anyone here claim that "mentation
about historical Gnosis, the nature of God, etc." will produce
Gnosis. It can serve as context though when comparing/contrasting
our individual experiences. Obviously we're all different and it
would seem that just one approach or combination of approaches
wouldn't work for everyone.
Yes, the human intellect can weave intricate webs of self-deception,
ignorance, projecting illusions. And, some people find it helpful to
quiet the mind as a technique to transcend misconceptions that might
kick in out of habit. But, I also think that the intellect as
discriminator can be a helpful tool. Those who advocate a "stop
thinking" track have in fact used their discriminating minds to
validate their experience in order to make this suggestion.
Now, OTOH, I know a few highly intelligent people I'd like to shake
up who try to refute nonrational experiences with their rational
minds in high gear. Highly reasonable people can rationalize with
the best of us. We're all capable of self-deception whether we lean
too strongly to the irrational or conversely the rational.
That said, we as humans perceive through images. Gnostic literature
states that we receive "truth in the form of images." (Gospel of
Philip) And, scripture also talks about different kinds of images.
In _The Gospel of Thomas_, "Jesus said, `When you (plur.) see your
resemblance you are happy. But when you see your images that came
into existence before you and are neither mortal nor visible, how
much you will have to bear.'"
No easy road, this Gnosis. It transcends feel-good human image
A view regarding entry into the bridal chamber, "... it is through
contemptible representations and powerless things that we shall
enter. They are contemptible compared to perfect glory there is
glory superior to glory, and power superior to power. Thus perfect
things were opened to us, along with hidden aspects of truth. And
the holies of holies was uncovered. And the bedroom invites us in."
- Hey Scott, before I jump into the subject matter, I wanted to ask
you to please not add attachments or format your posts to such a
heavy degree. The reason for this is that Yahoo gives us a limited
amount of space and they start erasing earlier posts when we reach
that limit. You would be suprised by just how large these posts are
in comparison to the average post. (this goes for everyone. It is
not a rule that we ever officially instituted, I am only asking this
as a favor at this time)
Anyways, on to the subject.
I don't feel, Scott, that you really fully answered Lady Cari's
points. I mean, sure you told us what YOU believe about overcomming
concious thought, and it is a belief that most of us have heard many
times before and are well familiar with. However, what Cari offered
was Gnostic scripture that pretty explicetly draw into question
whether the historical Gnostics would have agreed with you. I am not
saying your beliefs are not valid, just that you only answered her
by repeating your personal feelings rather than giving us some
scriptural context to connect it with the focus of this club
(namely, traditional Gnosticism).
Buddhist ideas are certainly an interesting subject, but can you
tell us how you feel that your ideas are compared to those offered
in Gnostic texts?
Then, to go on to your answer to Gavin.... I get the impression that
you are linking the Pleroma with the Source... the ALL with the
Father of the all, in a way that is starting to sound rather
pantheistic. I am not sure if you intend that, or if I am just
reading a bit too much into what you are trying to say (feel free to
clarify that point if you wish), but I don't believe pantheism is
supported in the Gnostic belief system at all (and the conversation
between Mike and I demonstrates quite well the textual evidence for
the Gnostic belief in just how separate the Father is). Perhaps you
would like to offer some textual evidence in support of that?
Once again, this has nothing to do with whether or not what you say
it true in the spiritual spectrum, that we cannot demonstrate.
Instead, as I have so often pointed out, to so many others here, it
is about demonstrating whether your points are
> When we actually sit quietly, and make no tense "effort" to thinka certain thought, or feel a certain feeling, then this is the
condition of meditation or prayer. It is a passive condition, and in
this passive condition, all sorts of thoughts and emotions arise *of
themselves* without the least provocation on our part and without us
doing a thing to either evoke or dispel them. If we were to try to
evoke a certain thought or line of thought this would show
partiality and attachment to this thought, and with both of these
phenomena, a sense of "I-ness" or self-centredness is integral.
Thoughts are like clouds that cover the face of God. If we try and
actively get rid of them, we only disturb the mind more and also
create an opposition between one part of the mind and the other. We
then fall into dualistic perception, conflict and tension and a
prayerful condition is hindered. The part (of mind) that dominates
the other and tries to suppress thought, we erroneously label
*will*, which as understood by most people is nothing more than the
feeling of tension that arises when we attempt to retard or stop
some unpleasant state of being. As for the quote from Phillip, I
wholeheartedly agree. We simply allow thoughts, positive or
negative, to arise before the light of conciousness. By not
intrefering in this process, we see these thoughts -- in the form of
lusts, manipulative tenddencies, and the vast plethora of egoistic
tricks -- as they really ARE without distortion. But if we are
*actively* engaging ourselves in this process of trying to eliminate
unpleasant or dark thoughts, then this active process, itself
revealing tendencies of like and dislike, desire, and so on --
itself becomes part of the problem, part of the thinking process
that we want to end so that we can access deepr states of
conciousness and eventually acheive communion with God. Can you see
from this explanation how God cannot act, create, or do anything.
That the highest, ultimate principle of reality must be at all
times, through all eternity, quiescent. Anything that moves, or
acts, does so within time and space and is of the mind. But God is
beyond mind. God does not move or change. He is the still centre
around which the circumference of creation -- the "outer darkness" --
moves. Stop the mind and you will know God.
>subjective. Already you have talked of "our" transcendence as if it
> Mentation allows us to recognize and interpret our
> Transcendence speaks for itself. Interpretation is personal,
were a personal thing. But trancendence is transcendence OF
anything/everything personal. By making it 'yours" or "mine" you've
turned it into another possession of the ego and are simply erecting
another layer of support for your "I" or personal/psychic layer of