Re: Who (or what) is "THE DEVIL"?/Great Fall of the Spirits
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>using
> > Okay, Fred, then perhaps you could expand more on how you are
> > the term, "immanence"?in
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immanence
> > And considering your definition, can you provide other passages
> > Gnostic scripture to exemplify this?result
> > Cari
> Hi Lady C,
> I would define "divine immanence" as the state of things as a
> of an emanationist process."State of things." Okay, Fred, this is still rather ambiguous to me.
> It is a well accepted part of the systemI am certainly aware of the emanation process used in Gnostic
> of Valentinus and Basilides.
( http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/emanatio.htm )
What is important is that I still see a duality from our temporal
observation in the sense of incorruptibility and corruptibility, even
in the more relaxed system of Valentinus. IOW, this is beyond "good"
god and "evil" world, or variations of how good or bad the
mythological demiurge is perceived to be in that middle region, for
Incorruptibility does not literally mix with corruptibility, even
though we might have an "immanent" sense of this purity or unity. We
must lift the stone or split the wood, metaphorically. We don't find
it literally *in* the stone or wood, which are weaker corruptions
alienated from the original "source."
Now, what is this source anyway? And, if we look directly to Gnostic
writings, as I suggested and bypass scholars' opinions, old and new,
for the moment, we see that the emanations described in these systems
do not come directly from the ineffable, infinite absolute, which is
beyond conception, beyond intellect, being or duality. After all,
there is nothing else in that sense but the absolute reality, which
we cannot conceive of. When we do conceive of anything it is within
our temporal realm of duality. The Gnostics recognized that we
perceive through representations and images, and an emanation system
occurs within our realm of duality. The absolute one becomes two in
a metaphorical sense, allowing an image of incorruptibility from
whence emanation proceeds. So, dualities are not false, so much as
lower manifestations of existence as opposed to absolute reality.
The illusion is believing that our temporal world (existence) is all
And, the Gnostics did realize this.
_The Secret Book of John_ describes a monad that "is a unitary
principle of rule, has nothing that presides over it. [...]god and
parent of the entirety [...]presides over [...] incorruptibility."
But this isn't all. This monad is "existing" (IOW part of our
temporal sensibilities)... metaphorically "[in] uncontaminated light,
toward which no vision can gaze. This [is] the invisible spirit." No
vision can gaze into the absolute. We can only conceive
representations, albeit representations of incorruptibility.
In another example, Ptolemy in his Version of the Gnostic Myth
begins: "Within invisible and unnameable heights" -- here again
symbolic mention of the Absolute
"there was -- they say -- a preexistent, perfect eternity; this they
call also prior source, ancestor, and the deep. And it existed
uncontained, invisible, everlasting, and unengendered. Within
infinite eternal realms it was in great stillness and rest." IOW
this prior source is the representation from whence emanation flows.
Now, _The Tripartite Tractate_ speaks of the Father as a "single one,
like a number, for he is the first one and the one who is only
himself. Yet he is not like a solitary individual."
There is a quandary when monists try to literally merge the Gnostic
Absolute nonbeing with our world. Emanationism at least allowed the
Gnostics to recognize the Absolute and our world as both real,
expressed by means of metaphorical representation, incorruptibility
and corruptibility, in their mythologies.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello Georgea
> On 06/16/04, you wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > Someone on my list said modern Gnostic churches do not allow women
> > to be priests. Is that true of your church?
> > George
> Stephan ordained Rosa Miller to the priesthood, and consecrated her
> bishop. We currently have two active women priests, and an activeGnostic
> woman deacon or three, I can't keep up with it. The short answer is
> no it is not true of our church, nor is it true of the French
> Church, our confederate. It may be true of some more traditionallyHi Mike,
> Catholic Gnostic churches, milage may vary. Years ago I asked an
> old Liberal Catholic Priest (they have no women in orders to this
> day), "how can you deny one of the sacraments to half the human
> race." He was stunned by the question, and said that was the only
> thing anyone had said to him that gave him doubts about the all male
> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
Thank you. I suspected she was wrong but didn't know for sure.