Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hypostasis of the Archons

Expand Messages
  • Lynette
    The Hypostasis of the Archons (The Reality of the Rulers) hello, just got my computer back yesterday, am reading this listed above. My question is, is it taken
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 23, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      The Hypostasis of the Archons
      (The Reality of the Rulers)

       
      hello, just got my computer back yesterday, am reading this listed above. My question is, is it taken to be literal or figurative?
      thanks
      Sincerely,
      Lynette
       
      "To find the solution is to discover there  is no problem."
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:12 PM
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Boiling it all down-other point

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Lynette <lynette_f@d...> wrote:
      > Mike,
      >
      > Background info, or something to read that talks about whatever it
      is you are referring to below. Thanks
      > Sincerely,
      > Lynette
      >
      > "To find the solution is to discover there  is no problem."
      >
      >
      >
      >   So let's start tha discussion.  In the Hypostasis of the Archons,
      the
      >   Archon Sabaoth is redeemed and becomes an Aion.  How is that
      possible
      >   for a creation of the Demiurge with no divine spark?
      >
      >   Regards
      >   --
      >   Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...
      >


      Hi, Lynette.  Here is a link to an online version of _The Hypostasis
      of the Archons_ (or _Reality of the Rulers_):

      http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

      And, here is the section of the text referred to:

      >>>This ruler, by being androgynous, made himself a vast realm, an
      extent without limit. And he contemplated creating offspring for
      himself, and created for himself seven offspring, androgynous just
      like their parent. And he said to his offspring, "It is I who am god
      of the entirety."

      And Zoe (Life), the daughter of Pistis Sophia, cried out and said to
      him, "You are mistaken, Sakla!" - for which the alternative name is
      Yaltabaoth. She breathed into his face, and her breath became a fiery
      angel for her; and that angel bound Yaldabaoth and cast him down into
      Tartaros below the abyss.

      Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he
      repented and condemned his father and his mother, matter. He loathed
      her, but he sang songs of praise up to Sophia and her daughter Zoe.
      And Sophia and Zoe caught him up and gave him charge of the seventh
      heaven, below the veil between above and below. And he is called 'God
      of the forces, Sabaoth', since he is up above the forces of chaos,
      for Sophia established him.

      Now when these (events) had come to pass, he made himself a huge four-
      faced chariot of cherubim, and infinitely many angels to act as
      ministers, and also harps and lyres. And Sophia took her daughter Zoe
      and had her sit upon his right to teach him about the things that
      exist in the eighth (heaven); and the angel of wrath she placed upon
      his left. Since that day, his right has been called 'life'; and the
      left has come to represent the unrighteousness of the realm of
      absolute power above.<<<


      Cari



    • Lynette
      Hi Cari, Deleted the old posts from this email, to shorten it. Your earlier posts is as follows. Which prompted my reply.Hi, Lynette and all. Okay, I m back.
      Message 41 of 41 , Aug 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Cari,
        Deleted the old posts from this email, to shorten it.
         
        Your earlier posts is as follows. Which prompted my reply.Hi, Lynette and all.  Okay, I'm back.  I think this thread got
        buried.  lol  I'll try a little resuscitation to answer your question
        (
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/9808 )
         
        {look below for my comments}

         



        Hi, Lynette and all.  Okay, I'm back.  I think this thread got
        buried.  lol  I'll try a little resuscitation to answer your question
        ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/9808 )
        about my thoughts, but I don't promise that I'll have as much success
        as Kerry did with his daughter's pet hamster. 

        Anyway, Lynette, you stated (#9808), "... taking into account that I
        do not believe in an external father, then this redemption for me is
        internal."

        Yes, this is an "internal" path.  This isn't about faith in a god
        entirely separate from us who literally in anthropomorphic style
        judges whether we should be redeemed or not.  But, on the other hand,
        we're also not talking about a solipsistic worldview either.  Nor do
        I believe the ancients who wrote this text were talking only about
        psychological integration, for instance.

        One thing that stands out for me is that the infinite father is
        something quite different from "error," and in fact, the father
        wouldn't even think in terms of "error."  The infinite "father" is
        incorruptible, does not mix with corruptibility.  So, what is this
        incorruptible spark "within" us?  Is it really "in" us in a temporal
        sense?  Certainly not physically, if incorruptible.  But indeed, we,
        like the ancients, are/were limited to trying to describe this in
        worldly terms.  So, "inner" and "outer" *locations*, though
        convenient symbolically, may not be viable *literally* when speaking
        of this unknown infinity.

        "If we join with it, it will receive our fullness."  Is this
        something we can do all on our own?  If so, does everyone succeed who
        attempts?  _The Gospel of Truth_ says, "It is a fallen (?) thing,
        that can easily be made upright through the discovery of him who came
        to that which he would bring back." "Him who came... "  This passage
        seems to agree with Mike's idea.  But I wouldn't get caught up with
        how this happens when considering an infinite Unknown, especially
        with any preconceptions from other religions. 

        _The Gospel of Philip_ passage seems to demonstrate that truth is
        hidden, waiting to be found.  We have the *fruits* of truth.

        The final passage of _The Gospel of Philip_ talks about "truth in the
        form of images":
        "Whoever receives that light will be invisible and cannot be
        restrained.  And nothing can harass such a person even while living
        in the world.  And, furthermore, when that person leaves this world,
        he or she has already received the truth in the form of images, and
        the world has already become the eternal realm.  For, to this person
        the eternal realm is fullness and, as such, is manifest to him or her
        alone -- hidden not in darkness and night but hidden in perfect day
        and holy light."

        Cari
         
        Hello, Cari, I appreciate you stating your understanding of the passages you mentioned above. We were talking about redemption weren't we? lol. I'll try and stick with that original thought. 
         
        You said,  
        Nor do I believe the ancients who wrote this text were talking only about
        psychological integration, for instance.
        I certainly agree with you. It is more than a psychological integration, it is also a physical acceptance, and emotional acceptance. {It being redemption}
         
        You also said,
        So, "inner" and "outer" *locations*, though
        convenient symbolically, may not be viable *literally* when speaking
        of this unknown infinity.
         
        And I agree with you with this as well. Just as you would use the term "father" though, lets not literally take the use of the word "internal" or "external" or "father" These are after all only terms that we have come to understand in a very shallow sense of the words.
         
        When one uses the word "father" or "mother", or even "external" and "internal" the idea of separateness is created. Knowing that separateness does not exist, it is still difficult to not use words that take on certain kinds of feelings, rather than using them literally. Does this make sense?
         
        You also mentioned,
        The infinite "father" is incorruptible, does not mix with corruptibility.
         
        There is no such thing as good/bad, corrupt or incorrupt. These are concepts. {Sorry, had to put that in there} Back to redemption though, only those that feel that there is badness in them {or the corrupt} Then they think that redemption must come from some other source then themselves. That is if you believe the incorruptible does not mix with the corrupt. Thus we are back to "external" or "internal" or in other terms, if they make more sense, "separate" or "togetherness". Shall we use those terms? Maybe they make more sense. For to me internal means togetherness in feeling, if not in meaning. Therefore your statement, "If we join with it, it will receive our fullness." Makes perfect sense to us both. However, it certainly is complicated to use words to describe things that are abstract in nature.
         
        Then you also stated,
        _The Gospel of Philip_ passage seems to demonstrate that truth is
        hidden, waiting to be found.  We have the *fruits* of truth.
        Certainly, I agree :)
         
        The final passage of _The Gospel of Philip_ talks about "truth in the
        form of images":
        "Whoever receives that light will be invisible and cannot be
        restrained.  And nothing can harass such a person even while living
        in the world.  And, furthermore, when that person leaves this world,
        he or she has already received the truth in the form of images, and
        the world has already become the eternal realm.  For, to this person
        the eternal realm is fullness and, as such, is manifest to him or her
        alone -- hidden not in darkness and night but hidden in perfect day
        and holy light."
         
        this passage would seem to answer your question, " If so, does everyone succeed who
        attempts?" 
         
         Unless one decides that there is an action that has to be done to be redeemed? The action being "receives". Which it is hard to do, hard to receive something that one already has.
         
        Anyways, thanks for your thoughts, Cari, I appreciate the time and effort you went into replying. I thought you had forgotten about the discussion.
         
        Lynette
         
         
         




      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.