Re: Relevance (George's definitions)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hey George....don't
> <<<<Hi PMCV,
> If we can't agree that Gnosis is knowledge by experience then I
> see how I can proceed.>>>that
> It isn't exactly that I disagree, George, but that I figured at
> point you are boiling it down to the absolute most simpleother
> possibility. I figured you were sort of outlining the basic Greek,
> and not yet attempting the Gnostic/Platonic usage. So, I thought I
> would wait.
> It is my impression that "gnosis" in the original Greek did mean an
> experinetial knowledge of sorts, but more particularly one of
> recognition within, or overall comprehension of, a subject. In
> words, in my understanding there are other Greek words that couldto "pliroforo"
> imply an experiential knowledge, such as "xero", which is also a
> direct familiarity kind of knowing that seems closer to how so many
> people are trying to use the word "gnosis" as opposed
> (sp?), which is informational.Hi PMCV,
> So, you see why I say that while I agree with you, that I did so a
> bit cautiously. The term "Experiential knowledge" could be used to
> remove certain important qualities of "gnosis" and I believe that
> perhaps this is why so many people have mistakenly equated "Gnosis"
> with the mystical experience.
I don't read Greek and didn't know about "xero" but, if I now
understand what you are saying, I do agree with your definition
There is not much more to my explanation. It is simply that from my
own experience when I read the various ancient "Gnostic" writings I
felt a deep kinship with those ancient authors. It was as if they
were putting into words the things I had already experienced. This
happened two years before I had my first "mystic" experience.
See, it was helpful for you to explain what you believe "gnosis" to
mean. If you hadn't I probably wouldn't have thought to mention that
this was before I had my first "mystic" experience.
- 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 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.