- Sorry it took me so long to get back to these posts. So Mary, while it is true that we see an internal quality to that form of knowing called Gnosis , itMessage 1 of 46 , Jun 1, 2004View SourceSorry it took me so long to get back to these posts.
So Mary, while it is true that we see an internal quality to that
form of knowing called "Gnosis", it doesn't mean that all internal
knowing qualify to that special spiritual form that the Gnostics talk
about. On top of that, the Gnostic texts make it very clear that
Cosmology is important, and the fact that Gnosis takes on a very
specific salvational function IS a doctrin in and of itself.
Since there are many groups that we call part of "Gnosticism" it
would be true that there is no overall "Gnostic" doctrin... but I
could also argue by the same method that there is no
overall "Christian" doctrin. This does not have any bearing on the
fact that individual Christian sects have doctrin, just as individual
Gnostic sects certainly did.
--- In email@example.com, "Mary VanEsselstyn"
> >From: pmcvflag <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Reply-To: email@example.com
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Relevance
> >Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 04:49:22 -0000
> No I am not sure but has been my impression that there was
> specific creeds or doctrines as there are iin the Christian Churchthat were
> formed later on by the by the organized church.I could be wrongbut
> haven't heard of any as yet and people seem to form their ownideas of
> Gnostis.Howevever I know that have much to learn.. My impressionhas been
> that gnostis is a kiind of inner knowing or understandiing thatdoes not
> originate from others. I understand that the gnostics based theirbeliefs on
> certain ancient myths but isn't that the way the ancientsexpressed certain
> truths. Isn't the story of Adam and Eve really an allegory ratherthan
> historical fact. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong asI am new
> to the subject thiis past year. Mary
- You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about the afterlife in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the self identity with theMessage 46 of 46 , Jun 9, 2004View SourceYou are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about
the "afterlife" in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the
self identity with the rejoining into the Source, that I don't think
Fred really missed my point so badly as to think I was talking about
some form of Buddhist monastic ego death. I think instead he is
purposfully taking my words out of context to be trite (something he
has already been reprimanded for). *sigh* He will be able to post
again when he is ready for serious conversation.
--- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
> > ... I know that this concept is very scary to a lot of
> > people who can't deal with the notion of loss of the self ...
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag also wrote:
> > ... I do know ...
> > ... I think if ...
> > ... I have known ...
> > ... I know that ...
> > PMCV
> Fred, I don't understand your point. I don't see PMCV as saying
> we "presently" lose our sense of self. The sentence before yourthe
> first quote reads, "You see, the "spirit", according to Gnostic
> thought, is not part of what we call "us". It is not part of one's
> personal identity, but instead it is a little reflective shard of
> source of all spirit. That is to say, it is a little piece thatwill
> rejoin with a larger whole EVENTUALLY." [emphasis added]in
> Personally, I view ego "death" as an oxymoron in this present
> existence. We all have egos. We need a sense of self to function
> this world. That is not the same as saying that we all are
> egotistical though.