- Cari Wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as stopping thinking for everyone.
For 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?
Scott Wrote:Active introspection, yes -- which means a vigilant concentration
or watching of our minds. But not thinking. We carefully watch our
thoughts, see or recognise them for what they are, and let them go.
They vanish or are "uprooted" when this recognition takes place. If
we are interfering, thinking about our thoughts, then we are adding
thought to thought, creating more activity and confusion. The mind is only clouded, and the serene light of the inner Christ obscured by the movement of thought. The text says nothing about the culmination of this practice or even if it
has one. But speaking from my own experience, this sounds like what
I and many others did/do as a purificatory activity, removing the
dark clouds (thoughts) that obscure the light of the Self or God.
The mind is *stopped* when this purification is complete. When all
our thoughts have burned out and we are like dead corpses, then the
Light naturally manifests. The soul (bride) is purified and can
unite with her bridegroom (The Lord) -- "Bridal chamber".
- I agree with you on your opion on how important
history is. Those who dont remember the past are
doomed. After 15 years of research on the nature of
people. I have found that we all judge every thing and
everyone. It is the way that one goes about it that
maters.This will have a negative or poitive influence
on the responce they will get. BE kind and choose
carfully the words you use to judge...
--- lady_caritas <email@example.com> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "synthesehalevi"
> --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > BTW, Scott, I realized there are a couple ofpoints I did not
> > (due to your formatting problems)initiation or
> > you state...
> > >>There is no evidence that these are *levels* of
> > initiations at all. We do not know if they were*seuqential* or
> > *progressive* (stepping stone) or any such thing.Ritual
> > perhaps, but that's about as much as we can saywith any
> >Gnostics meant
> > SO, by your reasoning we could equally state that
> > leave the pneumatic behind and find hylicism.Actually, Philip
> > states quite explicitly that the person reacheslevels in a
> > sequential order. Gentile, Jew, then Christian.AND, all the
> > agree that the bridal chamber does not happenbefore baptism.
> > for me a single scholor that does not agree thatthese are
> > initiatory levels, or a single source thatdisagrees with the
> > intances that ARE stated.Gnosis, as opposed
> > PMCV
> Hi -
> What about the actual EXPERIENCE of the living
to scholarly theses about It?
> From what I have gleaned during the past few days of
recent posts, only Scott Fraser is demonstrating some
experience of Gnosis. The rest of the contributing
members seem to be
quite content in theorizing, academiciszing about it.
> To me this seems to be the difference between a
pneumatic (true Gnostic). This is all okay, of course,
but as the
wisdom of Dirty Harry testifies: "A man has to know
> Would it not be wise to listen and seek through a
demonstrates some actual living experience?
> Even a dumb mule can carry lots of books!
I was tempted to delete this post, as I find it
inflammatory, but I
decided to respond to make a point. You are a new
member. You read
a few posts and disparagingly decide whom to label
pneumatic. I find that rather sophomoric and not at
respectful, constructive dialogue. Oh, surely, there
other members who have suggested these labels of other
during discussion. They have usually been less
direct. I still view
it as heckling and not acceptable in our group.
Whether or not
anyone even might be considered hylic, psychic, or
pneumatic is not a
reason for insensitive criticism.
Perhaps I need to yet again reiterate the focus of our
focus of our group is historical, classical
Gnosticism. This focus
does not mean that we are only a history club. We
invite those who
wish to discuss their personal paths, to discuss
actual EXPERIENCE of the living Gnosis." BUT, in our
discussion is compared/contrasted to those historical
discuss within a *context*. Now, y, how can we do
that if we don't
try to explore what those Gnostics said, thought,
they become "one with God," but still maintain a faith
theology? Not to my knowledge. Did they become "one
with God" and
believe that "all is one" in a pantheistic or
solipsistic sense? Not
to my knowledge. How do I know that? I find out
reading original sources in addition to academic
exegesis provided by
people who care to take the time to explore these
ancients. I also
learn much from discussion with others. And, in the
end, my own
experience comes into play when interpreting this
Members in this group are here for a variety of
reasons. Some are
following a path of Gnosis and wish to share with
others; some are
just curious and would like to find out more
information. There are
many internet lists that define Gnosis very broadly
and are in
existence for the sole purpose of discussing inner
We choose to do so within a specific context, one that
needs to be
discussed at times in order to describe and relate to
it. So, please
do not be misled into thinking that reading a few
posts will give you
insight into the spirit within this group. Not all
members even care
to openly discuss their personal paths. That is their
On the other hand, we are not looking for
proselytizers or gurus. We
all learn from each other here.
And, it is our prerogative to insist that you desist
group members categorically according to your
perception of their
grasp of Gnosis.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top";var lrec_URL = new
lrec_width = 300;var lrec_height = 250;
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.