Awakening to Gnosis
will...@yahoo.com
much like a musical ear. According to Stephan A. Hoeller, one person
who seemingly possesses it is Professor Clark Emery. Emery summarizes
twelve points on which Gnostics tended to agree.
Hoeller: "Nowhere in the current literature have I found anything else
so concise and accurate in describing the normative characteristics of
the Gnostic mythos." The following characteristics may be considered
normative for all Gnostic teachers and groups in the era of classical
Gnosticism; thus one who adheres to some or all of them today might
properly be called a Gnostic:
1. The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be
split into a plurality.
2. As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This
was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often
resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.
3. A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation
(albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).
4. In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be
personified as demonic beings separating man from God.
5. For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the
physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.
6. Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of
ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by
materiality.
7. Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the
divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the
possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.
8. What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works,
but knowledge.
9. Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.
10. Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these
dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this
knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.
11. The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic
event.
12. Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the
Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is
enjoined upon every man.
Works cited:
'What Is a Gnostic?'
By Stephan A. Hoeller
Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Traditions
Vol. 23, Spring 1992
'William Blake: The Book of Urizen'
By Clark Emery
University of Miami Press, 1966
pp. 13-14
Michael Z.
> 7. Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the
> divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the
> possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.
And truly speaking, this is a very dualistic view. With all the rant
against space and time, are the gnostics aware, that duality (e.g. between
'good' and 'bad', demonic and divine powers) is just a shadow of
materialism? It's actually the body idea extrapolated to some spiritual
heights.If you really speak of Unity, you have to include anything into
it, and can not really speak of 'Good' versus 'Bad'.
Kater Moggin
[re gnosticism]
> And truly speaking, this is a very dualistic view.
Like, duh. Gnosticism is famously dualistic. God vs. the
demiurge, spirit vs. matter, etc.
> With all the rant
> against space and time, are the gnostics aware, that duality (e.g. between
> 'good' and 'bad', demonic and divine powers) is just a shadow of
> materialism? It's actually the body idea extrapolated to some spiritual
> heights.
Actually, that's nattering, as you may or may not be aware.
> If you really speak of Unity, you have to include anything into
> it, and can not really speak of 'Good' versus 'Bad'.
Depends what unity you're referring to. If you're telling
me that you're unified with rank stupidity, I wouldn't be
inclined to argue, but the term has other uses. Oh, and by the
way, your insistence on what it _really_ means and how one
_has_ to use it directly contradicts your notion that words are
always up for grabs.
-- Moggin
carl amedio
dichotomy is,in reality, tdifferent aspects of the same whole.
Carl
"Michael Z." <han...@telda.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.26....@telda.net...
carl amedio
the paradigm.
Carl
"Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-0A420...@news.verizon.net...
> Michael Z <han...@telda.net>:
>
> [ Like, duh. Gnosticism is famously dualistic. God vs. the
Kater Moggin
> Gnosticism is not dualistc.
Sheer nonsense. Gnosticism is very dualistic. It opposes
the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine realm
-- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes numerous
other dualisms. Fullness versus deficiency. Eternity vs.
time. Incorruptibility vs. corruption. Permanence vs.
transience. Knowledge vs. ignorance. Uncreated versus created.
Etc.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> This Gnostic is fully aware of this.
That "Gnostic" doesn't even know gnosticism is filled with
dualities.
-- Moggin
Fuzzie Jester
> "Kater Moggin" <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:kimmerian-0A420...@news.verizon.net...
news:ReaUd.81739$Th1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Gnosticism is not dualistc. If you percieve it as so then you do not "see"
> the paradigm.
Pure garbage. The Gnostic sources are full of dualism, and that includes even the more
moderate ones.
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Woman was God's second mistake."
"I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time."
"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
--Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
shriven leper
wrote:
"Etc." indeed. Was it not the infamous nuvoadam (or Krag? or
NakedApe?) who last made the hugely erroneous statement that
Gnosticism "ain't dualistic"...? Fuzzie even put this lunatic quote
in his messages for quite a while.
- sl -
Kater Moggin
> "Etc." indeed. Was it not the infamous nuvoadam (or Krag? or
> NakedApe?) who last made the hugely erroneous statement that
> Gnosticism "ain't dualistic"...? Fuzzie even put this lunatic quote
> in his messages for quite a while.
Definitely Nuvo (I was quoting my reply to him), and maybe
some of those others, too. It's a periodically repeating
idiocy. We've been spared it for awhile now, but you never can
tell when it's going to pop up.
-- Moggin
Fuzzie Jester
"shriven leper" <bast...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:4uo221ht48k4f5l41...@4ax.com...
Sadly, I deleted that quote for something vastly more....."proveable".
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment."
"When it's a question of money, everybody is of the same religion."
-- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Michael Z.
> Michael Z <han...@telda.net>:
>
> [re gnosticism]
>
>> And truly speaking, this is a very dualistic view.
>
> Like, duh. Gnosticism is famously dualistic. God vs. the
> demiurge, spirit vs. matter, etc.
That's just the basis of my assumption
>
>> With all the rant
>> against space and time, are the gnostics aware, that duality (e.g. between
>> 'good' and 'bad', demonic and divine powers) is just a shadow of
>> materialism? It's actually the body idea extrapolated to some spiritual
>> heights.
>
> Actually, that's nattering, as you may or may not be aware.
>
>> If you really speak of Unity, you have to include anything into
>> it, and can not really speak of 'Good' versus 'Bad'.
>
> Depends what unity you're referring to.
I just defined it. A complete Unity, that doesn't exclude anything.The
problem with duality is, that it's intrinsically materialistic. In the
material world of time and space, two objects cannot take the same space,
therefore there is separation. I am pointing out that you have the same
view towards the spiritual world. Two things cannot take the same
position. I propose that this kind of thinking is derived from our
experience in the material world. That's the problem with any dualistic
view.
> If you're telling
> me that you're unified with rank stupidity, I wouldn't be
> inclined to argue, but the term has other uses.
You are free to spell them out. Thats what discussion is for, at least the
way I understand it.
> Oh, and by the
> way, your insistence on what it _really_ means and how one
> _has_ to use it directly contradicts your notion that words are
> always up for grabs.
Moggin, you have to make up your mind. Either you agree with one statement
of mine or with the other. When You point out that I cannot define Unity
for you (to which I fully agree), and that you reserve to have your own
definition, no problemo; but then you agree with me that gnosis can also
defined differently by different groups. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Besides that, you agreed already at least with part of my definition for
Unity, and pointing out that gnosis (as you understand it) is
intrinsically dualistic. So whats your problem?
Michael Z.
> "carl amedio" <c.am...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:ReaUd.81739$Th1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Gnosticism is not dualistc. If you percieve it as so then you do not "see"
>> the paradigm.
>
> Pure garbage. The Gnostic sources are full of dualism, and that includes even the more
> moderate ones.
As I said, there are different understandings and definitions of the word.
You just prove my point. You deny the factual.
shriven leper
<yeah...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>
>"shriven leper" <bast...@peak.org> wrote in message
>news:4uo221ht48k4f5l41...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 02:46:28 GMT, Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>carl amedio <c.am...@worldnet.att.net>:
>>>
>>>> Gnosticism is not dualistc.
>>>
>>> Sheer nonsense. Gnosticism is very dualistic. It opposes
>>>the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine realm
>>>-- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes numerous
>>>other dualisms. Fullness versus deficiency. Eternity vs.
>>>time. Incorruptibility vs. corruption. Permanence vs.
>>>transience. Knowledge vs. ignorance. Uncreated versus created.
>>>Etc.
>>
>>
>> "Etc." indeed. Was it not the infamous nuvoadam (or Krag? or
>> NakedApe?) who last made the hugely erroneous statement that
>> Gnosticism "ain't dualistic"...? Fuzzie even put this lunatic quote
>> in his messages for quite a while.
>
>Sadly, I deleted that quote for something vastly more....."proveable".
Your current quotes are fine. They serve their purpose well.
- sl -
Fuzzie Jester
What facts have I denied? If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
they have some serious reading comprehension issues. Those dualisms have been amply
demonstrated in the past in ARG.
If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of the word", you mean
"Gnosticism", then you are correct. However, some of those so-called "understandings" are
deliberately misleading and false. All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely
interested in seeking true Gnosis.
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Hell is other people."
"Man is a useless passion. "
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)
Fuzzie Jester
Kater Moggin
> >> Gnosticism is not dualistc. ...
Fuzzie Jester <No...@getlost.com>:
> > Pure garbage. The Gnostic sources are full of dualism ...
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> As I said, there are different understandings and definitions of the word.
> You just prove my point. You deny the factual.
Nope, he denied Carl's unfactual assertion that gnosticism
isn't dualistic. Get a fucking clue.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
[unity]
> I just defined it.
Nah, you just gave orders about how to talk about it, with
no definition. Not that I'm asking.
> A complete Unity, that doesn't exclude anything.The
> problem with duality is, that it's intrinsically materialistic.
Problem with you is you're hypnotized by trinkets that you
mistake for meaningful ideas.
> In the
> material world of time and space, two objects cannot take the same space
> therefore there is separation.
"What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is
one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." 1
Corinthians 6:16. If you don't like that counter-example, here
are a couple of others. Two clouds can merge, filling the
same space. Two sand piles can turn into one, thereby removing
their previous separation.
> I am pointing out that you have the same
> view towards the spiritual world. Two things cannot take the same
> position. I propose that this kind of thinking is derived from our
> experience in the material world.
You started out asserting an actuality. Now you're merely
offering a proposal. Keep backing down that ladder and
eventually you might reach solid ground, depending of course on
where the ladder is standing.
> That's the problem with any dualistic view.
No problem for dualism -- just a just-so story that you're
attached to.
> You are free to spell them out. Thats what discussion is for, at least the
> way I understand it.
O.k. One example of many: in the U.S. Civil War the side
called "the Union" (the north) fought the side called "the
Confederacy" (the south). The northern states were a political
unity among themselves, but they weren't unified with
everything, and least of all with the Confederate states to the
south of them.
> Moggin, you have to make up your mind. Either you agree with one statement
> of mine or with the other. When You point out that I cannot define Unity
> for you (to which I fully agree), and that you reserve to have your own
> definition, no problemo; but then you agree with me that gnosis can also
> defined differently by different groups.
Some words have more meanings than others, Micky. Does TM
make people stupid, or attact stupid people? Or is it the
fuckwits who do all the cross-posting from AMT, while everybody
else there talks among themselves?
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of the
> word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
Sure.
> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
> misleading and false.
According to your philosophy.
> All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely interested in seeking
> true Gnosis.
According to your philosophy. Point is you have no exclusive claim on the
word.You can point out your position as the only true one, no problemo.
Michael Z.
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
> [unity]
>
>> I just defined it.
>
> Nah, you just gave orders about how to talk about it, with
> no definition. Not that I'm asking.
Listen, I never give orders. What I said so was in itself a definition.
>
>> A complete Unity, that doesn't exclude anything.The
>> problem with duality is, that it's intrinsically materialistic.
>
> Problem with you is you're hypnotized by trinkets that you
> mistake for meaningful ideas.
>
>> In the
>> material world of time and space, two objects cannot take the same space
>> therefore there is separation.
>
> "What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is
> one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." 1
> Corinthians 6:16. If you don't like that counter-example, here
> are a couple of others. Two clouds can merge, filling the
> same space. Two sand piles can turn into one, thereby removing
> their previous separation.
The examples you cite aren't really accurate. Two sand piles can turn into
one, put they will take up the double space as well. The two individual
sandcorns cannot penetrate each other. With clouds it is the same. Thats
actually the reason it rains, because when the humidity at a certain space
gets too heavy, it cannot all be contained. I am sure you do not deny the
problems of time and space. Ever tried to book a plane ticket, when the
plane was sold out? Why do you think there are problems of hunger and
poverty in the world? Because the food that nourishes my neighbour cannot
nourish me anymore.And the money that is on your bankaccount cannot be on
mine as well. Therefore, it means that if I want to have something, it
means you cannot have the very same thing. I think this is fairly
understood. This is the problem of separation in a dualistic world.This
separation is the problem we all have, its the hallmark of duality. As you
say, this is the foundation of your philosophy.
>
>> I am pointing out that you have the same
>> view towards the spiritual world. Two things cannot take the same
>> position. I propose that this kind of thinking is derived from our
>> experience in the material world.
>
> You started out asserting an actuality. Now you're merely
> offering a proposal.
Its my opinion of course. And I propose to to investigate its logic.
> Keep backing down that ladder and
> eventually you might reach solid ground, depending of course on
> where the ladder is standing.
>
>> That's the problem with any dualistic view.
>
> No problem for dualism -- just a just-so story that you're
> attached to.
These non-sensical interceptions really don't do anything. Refute it or
leave it.
>
>> You are free to spell them out. Thats what discussion is for, at least
>> the way I understand it.
>
> O.k. One example of many: in the U.S. Civil War the side
> called "the Union" (the north) fought the side called "the Confederacy"
> (the south). The northern states were a political unity among
> themselves, but they weren't unified with everything, and least of all
> with the Confederate states to the south of them.
Right. So it was a Union in some respect, and not a Union in other
respects. It was a relative Union. It was a Union with respects to
politics, and with respect to only certain states, leaving other states
outside of its Union. Like I could say that I am united to myself, just
being One person as myself, but that doesn't help me much, because I am in
a position of Duality to others. The example you picked is actually very
good, because the Union states themselves were in dualistic position to
others, and that's the reason there was war! Good example.Therefore I say
(propose) your peace is relative, dependend. It depends on you being on
the 'right' side. There is always the other side.I am happy to learn if
its different.
>> Moggin, you have to make up your mind. Either you agree with one
>> statement of mine or with the other. When You point out that I cannot
>> define Unity for you (to which I fully agree), and that you reserve to
>> have your own definition, no problemo; but then you agree with me that
>> gnosis can also defined differently by different groups.
>
> Some words have more meanings than others, Micky.
Sure, but thats a dynamic process, not being determined by one person, not
by you and me.
> Does TM
> make people stupid, or attact stupid people?
No idea, you'd have to ask TM ers. But it could well be that TM attacks
stupid people ;-)
> Or is it the fuckwits who
> do all the cross-posting from AMT, while everybody else there talks
> among themselves?
You'd have to ask them, I am merely responding.
>
> -- Moggin
Bob Hopeless
> Does TM
> make people stupid, or attact stupid people?
TM per se likely has no effect at all on intelligence, or anything else for
that matter. Well over 90% of people quit almost immediately thus
demonstrating that well over 90% of people's intelligence, at least, isn't
impaired. A temporary stupidity does occur however when the
religious-philosophy, mis-labelled the 'science of creative intelligence',
concocted by the 'maharishi', is bought into by people who, presumably, need
to believe in some kind of fairy tale at all costs, who are yet not
necessarily stupid in the traditional sense and who actually continue to do
TM. Once infected, the TMer will attempt to re-interpret all religions and
philosophies in light of their special knowledge and understanding,
verified, or so they've been led to believe, by their own direct experience
of a transcendent ultimate reality via TM, but which is simply a slight
pause in the thinking process in which the mind forgets itself for a second
or two, which happens to everyone all the time anyway, and which has no
significance whatever; bending and distorting the aforementioned religions
and philosophies with the pliers of their simplistic world view 'til they
become mere pale, inadequate reflections of the 'maharishi's' grand model.
Bob Hopeless
will...@yahoo.com
>> spark of the divine substance.
>
>
Shankara. The inner man is part and parcel of the divine Brahman; the
spark in man is the Atman.
> With all the rant against space and time, are the gnostics
> aware, that duality (e.g. between 'good' and 'bad', demonic
> and divine powers) is just a shadow of materialism?
>
The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya, a
radical dualism. Only a very minor section of Indian philosphers are
monists.
> It's actually the body idea extrapolated to some spiritual
> heights.If you really speak of Unity,
>
The object of gnosis is not unity, it is isolation, as pointed out by
Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras.
> you have to include anything into it, and can not really speak
> of 'Good' versus 'Bad'.
>
It's not a matter of good or bad - it's a matter of being able to
discriminate the real from the unreal.
will...@yahoo.com
> Like, duh. Gnosticism is famously dualistic.
>
is the way out of all 'isms'. All 'isms' are dualistic in nature.
There's only one gnosis, Knowledge of the Real - everything else is an
illusion, a phantom, like a sky-flower, a hare's horn, a barren woman's
son. Dualism is in fact a metaphysical concept. There's nothing in
experience that would indicate that there are dual Realities - that
would be a contradiction in terms. There is only one Real and it is
known from gnosis, a seeing into the way things really are, that's why
they call it 'gnostic' instead of 'dualism'. If gnosis were a duality,
there would be no need for gnosis!
Michael Z.
> Once infected, the TMer will attempt to re-interpret all religions and
> philosophies in light of their special knowledge and understanding,
Thanks Bob, you are giving me some direction. And I start right away in
re-interpreting your babble to be positive.
will...@yahoo.com
>
The nonsense, Kater, is to take the Real for the unreal. The Real is
the only Reality - the unreal is an illusion. Don't mistake the Real
for mere metaphysical speculation. The pointing finger is not the moon
itself.
> Gnosticism is very dualistic.
>
There's no such thing as 'Gnosticism'; dualism is a metaphysical
concept and has nothing to do with gnosis. Gnosis is the direct
experience of the Real.
> It opposes the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine
> realm -- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes
> numerous other dualisms.
>
Pure speculation - rude metaphysics.
There's nothing in the experience of man that would indicate that there
is a 'divine' Creator of this world, or that this world is a dulaism,
or that the Pleroma was a dualist.
> Fullness versus deficiency.
>
Again, pure metaphysical speculation.
> Eternity vs. time.
>
Time is an illusion - in Reality there is no time or eternity.
> Incorruptibility vs. corruption.
>
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Can you provide a single
example of change in the universe?
> Permanence vs. transience.
>
Permanence too is an illusion and it's counter to experience.
Everything changes, but it's pure specualtion that a person can cause
the base elements to change. Please provide a single instance of anyone
ever causing change at will.
> Knowledge vs. ignorance.
>
Ignorance is nescience; knowledge is gnosis; where there is gnosis,
there is no nescience. In Sanskrit, ignorance is avidya; knowledge in
Sanskrit is jnana. Where there is jnana, there is no avidya.
> Uncreated versus created.
>
More metaphysics. It is a myth that this world was created - second law
of thermodynamics. Any evidence otherwise?
will...@yahoo.com
> who last made the hugely erroneous statement that
> Gnosticism "ain't dualistic"...?
>
statement. Gnosis knows no 'isms', period, whether a Krag, a NakedApe,
a Moogin, or a Leper. All 'isms' are part and parcel of the world
speculation.
will...@yahoo.com
>
> If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
> they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
>
Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
> Those dualisms have been amply demonstrated in the past in ARG.
>
The Emperor is now shown to be naked.
> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
> of the word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
>
There are many 'isms' in the world of metaphysical speculation.
> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are
> deliberately misleading and false.
>
So, it's down to judging who is a gnostic and who isn't. If you're not
willing to adopt to the dualistic metaphysic, then you're not a
gnostic?
> All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely
> interested in seeking true Gnosis.
>
Do you think you'll gain gnosis through fuzzy metaphysical speculation?
will...@yahoo.com
> TM per se likely has no effect at all on
> intelligence, or anything else for that matter.
>
> Well over 90% of people quit almost immediately thus
> demonstrating that well over 90% of people's intelligence,
> at least, isn't impaired.
>
If there's no such thing as TM how could they start it, Mr. Hopeless?
> A temporary stupidity does occur however when the
> religious-philosophy, mis-labelled the 'science of
> creative intelligence', concocted by the 'maharishi',
> is bought into by people who, presumably, need to
> believe in some kind of fairy tale at all costs,
> who are yet not necessarily stupid in the traditional
> sense and who actually continue to do TM.
>
Apparently you can't even define what TM is, much less what it does or
doesn't do. Can you define what TM is? I think not, and in over five
years of dialog with you, I've yet to see a definition from you. Now
you're spouting off on alt.gnostic.religion - to what end? Can you
define 'gnostic'?
Oh! I get it - TM is Gnosis!
jst...@panix.com
Bob Hopeless wrote:
<snip>
> TM. Once infected, the TMer will attempt to re-interpret all
religions and
> philosophies in light of their special knowledge and understanding,
> verified, or so they've been led to believe, by their own direct
experience
> of a transcendent ultimate reality via TM
Just for da record, TMers are hardly the first to
see a common basis for all religions (not necessarily
philosophies; that's a red herring), nor are they the
first to have been be led to this notion via their
own direct experiences of a transcendent ultimate
reality. That knowledge and understanding are not
unique to TM by any means. Indeed, it's ubiquitous
throughout history and across cultures, as Leibniz
recognized when he dubbed it the "Perennial Philosophy."
will...@yahoo.com
> TMers are hardly the first to see a common
> basis for all religions (not necessarily
> philosophies; that's a red herring),
>
it's a moot point if they 'see a common basis in all religions'.
> nor are they the first to have been be led to this
> notion via their own direct experiences of a
> transcendent ultimate reality.
>
Non-sequitur.
> That knowledge and understanding are not
> unique to TM by any means. Indeed, it's ubiquitous
> throughout history and across cultures, as Leibniz
> recognized when he dubbed it the "Perennial Philosophy.
>
Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
Gnosticism: A 'belief' that salvation is achieved through
transcendental knowledge.
Gnosis: One who 'knows' through direct experience of the Transcendent
Real.
A "gnostic" is one who knows," one who cultivates the oportunity to
make contact with the Being, the Cosmic Conciousness. Unlike those who
follow their senses, a religion or seek to understand metaphysical
speculation, the gnostic fully expects to experience the saving grace
in his lifetime.
The primary ingredient in Gnosis is Initiation. The purpose of
initiation is not to explain the effects of the Fall but to overcome
its effects. The goal of initiation is gnosis - a direct, personal
experience with Being, within the constraints of the flawed human body.
The word 'gnosticism' is a word from the mouths of the ignorant.
"Even these days I hear some words "transcendentalism." It is the
transcendental field that is free from "isms". All "isms" belong to the
changing sphere of relative life. Every "ism" has some corresponding
branch of learning. This ism or this ism; transcendentalism is a word
from the mouth of the ignorant. There is nothing like
transcendentalism. Transcendental field of absolute is free from "ism."
It is pure intelligence, pure Being, pure existence."
Fuzzie Jester
> Am Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:02:49 +1300 schrieb Fuzzie Jester:
>
>> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of the
>> word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
>
> Sure.
>
>> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
>> misleading and false.
>
> According to your philosophy.
No, according to the Gnostic sources themselves. You might actually try reading them.
>> All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely interested in seeking
>> true Gnosis.
>
> According to your philosophy. Point is you have no exclusive claim on the
> word.You can point out your position as the only true one, no problemo.
Once again, according to the Gnostic sources. What you, (seemingly), and the New Agers
present as "Gnosticism" simply isn't it. It is an abortion of gnosticism, just like the
filth that Yaldaboath created. Simply call whatever you want to present by some other name
rather usurping and twisting other names to your own bent.
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109628858....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> What facts have I denied?
>>
> That gnosis is Knowledge of the Real?
>
>> If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
>> they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
>>
> Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
> religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
>
>> Those dualisms have been amply demonstrated in the past in ARG.
>>
> The Emperor is now shown to be naked.
>
>> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
>> of the word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
>>
> There are many 'isms' in the world of metaphysical speculation.
>
>> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are
>> deliberately misleading and false.
>>
> So, it's down to judging who is a gnostic and who isn't. If you're not
> willing to adopt to the dualistic metaphysic, then you're not a
> gnostic?
Now you are starting to get it!
carl amedio
same/one eternal whole. Duality is a mecessary adaptation by man. We can
only seem to think in these concepts.
Carlnews:kimmerian-07364...@news.verizon.net...> Sheer nonsense. Gnosticism is very dualistic. It opposes
> the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine realm
> -- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes numerous
> time. Incorruptibility vs. corruption. Permanence vs.
> transience. Knowledge vs. ignorance. Uncreated versus created.
> Etc.
>
carl amedio
Carl
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109628041....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Kater Moggin
> Listen, I never give orders.
Listen, you've been giving orders right here; about how to
speak about unity, for example, and about how to reply to
others' use of words. I could probably find more illustrations
if I looked.
[unity and separation]
> The examples you cite aren't really accurate.
The examples I gave are highly accurate, but you can throw
out the scriptural one if you want to.
> Two sand piles can turn into one
Precisely -- and when two sandpiles turn into one, they're
no longer divided from each other, showing that material
objects are not necessarily separated in the "world of time and
space."
> put they will take up the double space as well
Nonetheless, the two sand piles have become _one_ sandpile.
Their former separation is removed.
> The two individual sandcorns cannot penetrate each other.
So what? When the two sandpiles become one sandpile, they
demonstrate that material objects _don't_ always remain
separate in the "world of time and space." Your observation is
empirically false.
> With clouds it is the same.
Damn right it is. When two clouds merge together, they're
another counter-example to your idea material objects are
necessarily separated in the world of time and space. I'm sure
you can think of more.
> Thats
> actually the reason it rains, because when the humidity at a certain space
> gets too heavy, it cannot all be contained. I am sure you do not deny the
> problems of time and space.
Uh-huh. Time and space cause all sorts of problems. Very
bad ideas, both of them.
> Ever tried to book a plane ticket, when the plane was sold out?
Wouldn't need to take a plane if things weren't spread all
out all over the place. On the other hand, without space
things could get pretty crowded. Just one, big traffic jam, as
it were.
> Why do you think there are problems of hunger and
> poverty in the world? Because the food that nourishes my neighbour cannot
> nourish me anymore.
From what I've heard, there's now enough food to go around
-- enough for both your neighbor and you. The problem is
merely that it _isn't_ going around, so the blame lies with the
economic system, namely capitalism.
> And the money that is on your bankaccount cannot be on mine as well.
Sure it could. The money is my bank account is all zero's
and one's, not just because it's a small amount, but also
because that's how the bank works: it uses computers to keep a
running tally rather than storing my dollars and coins in a
big safe. So the money credited to me could easily be credited
to you, too. Just a bookkeeping issue.
> Therefore, it means that if I want to have something, it
> means you cannot have the very same thing.
Depends what the thing is. We can both have the same song.
> I think this is fairly
> understood. This is the problem of separation in a dualistic world. This
> separation is the problem we all have, its the hallmark of duality.
Not so. The illustrations that you gave all aimed to
show difficulties in a world of multiplicity, or what Buddhists
call the "ten thousand things." Lots of things spread all
over the place, divided in various ways -- _that's_ what you're
describing. Not duality.
> As you say, this is the foundation of your philosophy.
No, that isn't close to what I said. I said gnosticism is
famously dualistic, and I gave two examples: spirit vs.
matter and God vs. the demiurge -- that is, the Creator of this
world.
Mike:
> Its my opinion of course.
Now you've descended from asserting an actuality to making
a proposal to giving your opinion.
> These non-sensical interceptions really don't do anything. Refute it or
> leave it.
Or point out your supposed "actuality" is just a fable you
like to recite.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> > If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of the
> > word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
> > However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
> > misleading and false.
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> According to your philosophy.
No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
sources.
> Point is you have no exclusive claim on the word.
Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
isn't the Creator of this world.
Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
the term are full of holes.
-- Moggin
Fuzzie Jester
Thank you. :-)
Kater Moggin
> > If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
> > they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
True. The dualities in gnosticism are hard to miss unless
you're really trying.
> Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
> religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
Can you honestly claim anybody here is saying the gnostics
of antiquity called their beliefs "gnosticism"? No, you
can't. And can you honestly deny that I explained the word was
a later coinage? No, you can't.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> There's ain't no such thing as a 'gnosticism' - that's a metaphysical
> statement.
Thanks ever so much for sharing your metaphysics. Looking
forward to your epistemology.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> There's no such thing as 'Gnosticism'
The ideas, history and practices of the gnostics, e.g. the
Sethians, the Naasenes, the Valentinians, and the
Marcionites -- that's what gnosticism is. Basic themes include
the division of the Creator of this world from God and a
correspondingly negative view of the Creation, seen as a prison
or exile.
> dualism is a metaphysical concept and has nothing to do with gnosis.
Awakening to the duality of above and below has everything
to do with gnosis.
> Gnosis is the direct experience of the Real.
That's mysticism broadly speaking. Gnosis is specifically
the spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics.
Moggin:
> > Gnosticism is very dualistic. It opposes
> > the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine realm
> > -- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes numerous
> > other dualisms. Fullness versus deficiency. Eternity vs.
> > time. Incorruptibility vs. corruption. Permanence vs.
> > transience. Knowledge vs. ignorance. Uncreated versus created.
> > Etc.
willy:
> Pure speculation
Nope. Every item there is in the sources. I'd dig up the
details if I thought you cared.
> - rude metaphysics.
> There's nothing in the experience of man that would indicate that there
> is a 'divine' Creator of this world
Exactly. From the gnostic perspective, there's alot which
casts doubt on the Creator's divinity.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> The word 'Gosticism'
The word "Gnosticism" refers to the ideas, the history and
the practices of the gnostics, e.g. the Sethians, the
Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites. Central themes
include the division of the Creator of this world from the
true God and a similarly negative view of the Creation, seen as
an exile or prison.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Gnosticism: A 'belief' that salvation is achieved through
> transcendental knowledge.
Not any such belief, no: the beliefs of the people called
gnostics -- e.g. the Marcionites, the Sethians, the
Valentinians -- plus their history and practices. Salvation is
salvation from this world and its rulers, including its
Creator, reduced from the supreme deity to an inferior demiurge.
> Gnosis: One who 'knows' through direct experience of the Transcendent
> Real.
No, no, no. Gnosis isn't one who knows a thing: it's the
knowledge, specifically the spiritual knowledge asserted by
the gnostics, for instance that the Creator of this world isn't
God.
The "direct experience of the Transcendent Real" is called
mysticism -- a much wider category.
> A "gnostic" is one who knows," one who cultivates the oportunity to
> make contact with the Being, the Cosmic Conciousness.
Nope. To a gnostic, _cosmic_ consciousness belongs to the
demiurge, the highly inferior being -- he's described as
evil, arrogant, ignorant, disgusting, and so on, with specifics
differing from place to place -- who made and rules this
horrible world. The divine being -- God or whatever you'd like
to call him -- is beyond the cosmos.
> Unlike those who
> follow their senses, a religion or seek to understand metaphysical
> speculation, the gnostic fully expects to experience the saving grace
> in his lifetime.
Another false generalization. Granted, the variety of the
gnostic schools makes it hard to talk about them in broad
terms, so I don't mind cutting some slack. But you're not even
trying. The salvific properties of gnosis can kick in
during the afterlife, rather than during this one, according to
the info in the sources.
Take the Phibionites (Epiphanius, Panarion 26.10.6-11, Pan.
26.13.2f, quoting a Gospel of Philip), who hold that a
departing soul in a state of gnosis which hasn't left itself in
the world -- a comment on having kids -- is able to pass
beyond the archons, trample on the Creator's head, and go on to
the "higher place," while less well-equipped souls will be
caught and stuck back into a body; reincarnated, in other words.
> The primary ingredient in Gnosis is Initiation. The purpose of
> initiation is not to explain the effects of the Fall but to overcome
> its effects. The goal of initiation is gnosis - a direct, personal
> experience with Being, within the constraints of the flawed human body.
Not necessarily. In the Gospel of Philip 70:5-7 it's said
that the archons (meaning the rulers of the cosmos) "do not
see those who are clothed in perfect light, and
consequently are not able to detain them," implying that gnosis
lets one escape the material world.
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
>> Listen, I never give orders.
>
> Listen, you've been giving orders right here; about how to
> speak about unity, for example, and about how to reply to
> others' use of words.
Then you misunderstood me. Its okay for me to point that out, and you
don't have to insist on your misunderstanding. Of course all of what I say
is my opinion. How long are you using the Usenet? It's a given. So in this
context, saying 'you have to' or better 'one has to' only refers to the
inner logic of my argument, and not that you have to adopt it. You can of
course refute it. But you only tried to use it illegitimately to
counteract another argument of mine, bringing to your notice that the term
'Gnosis' as it is, with or without your agreement, like it or not, as you
yourself admit already, used in diverse ways, by different people. That
you can only acknowldege as a *fact* After I have all this clarified to
you, you resist this clarification and insist on your mix up of
'agreement' and 'acknowledgement'. Anyway, as I said, neither you nor I
are being asked, when writers decide to use a word the way they decide.
This is social practise. You can now try to resist this social practise,
but you still have to acknowledge it as going on.
So, if someone asks you what 'Gnosis' means, you should correctly asnwer,
that it means different things to different people, to which you yourself
don't all agree.
Except, if you belief, that words have an inherent meaning, irrelevant of
social practise. You haven't yet clarified if this is what you believe.
> I could probably find more illustrations
> if I looked.
>
> [unity and separation]
>
>> The examples you cite aren't really accurate.
>
> The examples I gave are highly accurate, but you can throw
> out the scriptural one if you want to.
Sure.
>
>> Two sand piles can turn into one
>
> Precisely -- and when two sandpiles turn into one, they're
> no longer divided from each other, showing that material
> objects are not necessarily separated in the "world of time and
> space."
Its again a matter of definition of words. A sandpile is not really a
single object, but a collection of many sandcorns, who simply cannot hold
the same space.
>
>> put they will take up the double space as well
>
> Nonetheless, the two sand piles have become _one_ sandpile.
> Their former separation is removed.
Not really. Its only an optical illusion ;-)
>
>> The two individual sandcorns cannot penetrate each other.
>
> So what? When the two sandpiles become one sandpile, they
> demonstrate that material objects _don't_ always remain separate in the
> "world of time and space." Your observation is empirically false.
No it is not, because it depends on your definition of the object.
>
>> With clouds it is the same.
>
> Damn right it is. When two clouds merge together, they're
> another counter-example to your idea material objects are necessarily
> separated in the world of time and space. I'm sure you can think of
> more.
>
>> Thats
>> actually the reason it rains, because when the humidity at a certain
>> space gets too heavy, it cannot all be contained. I am sure you do not
>> deny the problems of time and space.
>
> Uh-huh. Time and space cause all sorts of problems. Very
> bad ideas, both of them.
Isn't that gnostic according to you? Aren't space and time called demons
in your system as well?
>
>> Ever tried to book a plane ticket, when the plane was sold out?
>
> Wouldn't need to take a plane if things weren't spread all
> out all over the place.
I think you are catching up now.
> On the other hand, without space things could
> get pretty crowded. Just one, big traffic jam, as it were.
Thats what I mean - in the material world.
>
>> Why do you think there are problems of hunger and poverty in the world?
>> Because the food that nourishes my neighbour cannot nourish me anymore.
>
> From what I've heard, there's now enough food to go around
> -- enough for both your neighbor and you.
That maybe, then distribution is the problem - again a problem of time and
space.
> The problem is merely that it
> _isn't_ going around, so the blame lies with the economic system, namely
> capitalism.
Whatever, but the problem is more deep, it's root is egoism.
>
>> And the money that is on your bankaccount cannot be on mine as well.
>
> Sure it could. The money is my bank account is all zero's
> and one's, not just because it's a small amount, but also because that's
> how the bank works: it uses computers to keep a running tally rather
> than storing my dollars and coins in a big safe. So the money credited
> to me could easily be credited to you, too. Just a bookkeeping issue.
Exactly. But don't you think you are escaping the issue? Separation,
divison is at the heart of materialism, you can't avoid it.
>
>> Therefore, it means that if I want to have something, it means you
>> cannot have the very same thing.
>
> Depends what the thing is. We can both have the same song.
>
>> I think this is fairly
>> understood. This is the problem of separation in a dualistic world.
>> This separation is the problem we all have, its the hallmark of
>> duality.
>
> Not so. The illustrations that you gave all aimed to
> show difficulties in a world of multiplicity, or what Buddhists call the
> "ten thousand things."
Well, and multiplicity can be reduced to duality. Duality is the
role-model of multiplicity.
> Lots of things spread all over the place,
> divided in various ways -- _that's_ what you're describing. Not
> duality.
>
It needs duality for multiplicity to be there, don't you think?
>> As you say, this is the foundation of your philosophy.
>
> No, that isn't close to what I said. I said gnosticism is
> famously dualistic, and I gave two examples: spirit vs. matter and God
> vs. the demiurge -- that is, the Creator of this world.
If it's not fundamental to this (your) belief, why then do you quarrel? If
it's just a side issue for which it is famous, why all this concern of
dilution into broad New Age terms?
>
> Mike:
>
>> Its my opinion of course.
>
> Now you've descended from asserting an actuality to making
> a proposal to giving your opinion.
I thought that's a given. It's self-evident, when someone speaks up. Its
just you who turned it into an absolutist remark, it was never meant to
be. It was pointed though, and I think it touches on an essential problem
other, later philosophies have tried to solve. But as you choose to freeze
an old philosophy, disallowing it any interaction with any of these
problems, and more modern solutions to it, you are merely dealing with a
sceleton, a fosil.
>
>> These non-sensical interceptions really don't do anything. Refute it or
>> leave it.
>
> Or point out your supposed "actuality" is just a fable you
> like to recite.
You were doing well in erasing the quote it refered to. It was just too
stupid ;-)
Michael Z.
> Fuzzie Jester <No...@getlost.com>:
>
>> > If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of the
>> > word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
>> > However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
>> > misleading and false.
>
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
>> According to your philosophy.
>
> No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
> sources.
>
Moggin, you are again contradicting yourself: These sources as you said
youself, didn't use the word 'Gnosticism'. This is a later coinage. Then
these texts can't be proof of how the word is to be used.
>> Point is you have no exclusive claim on the word.
>
> Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
> spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
> Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
> isn't the Creator of this world.
Point is, definitions vary.
>
> Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
> the term are full of holes.
No justification here; I am only interested in how the term has been used
*throughout* history, and which development he underwent. While you are
only giving me frozen and selected meanings.
Kater Moggin
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
> > No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
> > sources.
Mike:
> Moggin, you are again contradicting yourself:
Mike, you are again full of crap. I couldn't possiblly be
contradicting myself, because a) I'm not contradicting
myself and b) I didn't contradict myself before -- but I'm sure
you won't let that get in your way.
> These sources as you said
> youself, didn't use the word 'Gnosticism'.
> This is a later coinage.
> Then these texts can't be proof of how the
> word is to be used.
They're evidence regarding the gnostics. The word denotes
-- by definition -- the gnostics' thinking, history, and
practices. So if a dictionary entry described them as faithful
Creator-worshippers, it would be mistaken according to the
contents of the historical sources, which say they rejected the
Creator's claim to be God.
> Point is, definitions vary.
Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
isn't the Creator of this world.
You tried to justify a much wider meaning of term, but you
didn't succeed.
Moggin:
> > Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
> > the term are full of holes.
Michael:
> No justification here;
I agree. You attempted a justfication, but failed to find
one that worked.
> I am only interested in how the term has been used
> *throughout* history, and which development he underwent.
You tried and failed to justify a wide meaning of the word
gnosis, showing that your interest extends beyond the ways
that the term has been used. Now you're revising your personal
history
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
>> >> According to your philosophy.
>
> Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>
>> > No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
>> > sources.
>
> Mike:
>
>> Moggin, you are again contradicting yourself:
>
> Mike, you are again full of crap. I couldn't possiblly be
> contradicting myself, because a) I'm not contradicting
> myself and
by definition I suppose.
b) I didn't contradict myself before -- but I'm sure
> you won't let that get in your way.
No.
>
>> These sources as you said
>> youself, didn't use the word 'Gnosticism'.
>> This is a later coinage.
>> Then these texts can't be proof of how the
>> word is to be used.
>
> They're evidence regarding the gnostics. The word denotes
> -- by definition --
Ah, I see, by definition. By definition of whom? The dictionaries? You
start sounding like Petrus.
> the gnostics' thinking, history, and
> practices. So if a dictionary entry described them as faithful
> Creator-worshippers, it would be mistaken according to the
> contents of the historical sources, which say they rejected the
> Creator's claim to be God.
Which is not what I am saying.
>
>> Point is, definitions vary.
>
> Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
> spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
> Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
> isn't the Creator of this world.
By whos definition?
>
> You tried to justify a much wider meaning of term, but you
> didn't succeed.
>
> Moggin:
>
>> > Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
>> > the term are full of holes.
>
> Michael:
>
>> No justification here;
>
> I agree. You attempted a justfication,
Mind-reader.
>> I am only interested in how the term has been used
>> *throughout* history, and which development he underwent.
>
> You tried and failed to justify a wide meaning of the word
> gnosis,
There is no justification involved, only an acknowledgement of the
factual. While your only resort are fozen and empty dictionary
definitions, according to your own admission. The so-called Gnostics
didn't even call themselves Gnostics! You are really fighting against
wind-mills.
> showing that your interest extends beyond the ways
> that the term has been used.
No. You are wrong again. You have already admitted the usage of the term,
only you have denied your agreement. How could you deny your agreement, if
there was no usage?
> Now you're revising your personal
> history
Not at all. Everything else is mind-reading from your side.
Kater Moggin
> >> Listen, I never give orders.
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
> > Listen, you've been giving orders right here; about how to
> > speak about unity, for example, and about how to reply to
> > others' use of words. I could probably find more illustrations
> > if I looked.
Mike:
> Then you misunderstood me.
I certainly understood what you said. But I gather you're
not a native English-speaker, so it's very possible you
meant something else. I wouldn't criticize anybody for running
into trouble with a foreign language.
> Its okay for me to point that out, and you
> don't have to insist on your misunderstanding.
That's you -- you insist I misunderstand every single time
you say something stupid.
> Of course all of what I say
> is my opinion. How long are you using the Usenet? It's a given.
No, Grandfather, it isn't a given. People very often feel
they're offering facts, not just opinions.
> So in this
> context, saying 'you have to' or better 'one has to' only refers to the
> inner logic of my argument, and not that you have to adopt it. You can of
> course refute it. But you only tried to use it illegitimately to
Nope, I pointed out it depended on what you were referring
to -- what kind of unity -- in one case. In the other I
pointed out an alternative (criticizing rather than just giving
an acknowledgment) you'd missed.
> counteract another argument of mine, bringing to your notice that the term
> 'Gnosis' as it is, with or without your agreement, like it or not, as you
> yourself admit already, used in diverse ways, by different people.
Same for apples. Some people eat them -- others fill them
with poison and give them out on Halloween.
> That you can only acknowldege as a *fact* After I have all this clarified
> to you, you resist this clarification and insist on your mix up of
> 'agreement' and 'acknowledgement'.
You're bullshitting again, Mike. I showed that you were a
damnfool to claim acknowledgment was the only possible
response to others' use of words. The only one confused is you
-- and you're probably just faking.
> Anyway, as I said, neither you nor I
> are being asked, when writers decide to use a word the way they decide.
I didn't ask you for your opinion about writers' decisions
-- I pointed out the problem with your attempt to justify a
generic sense of the word gnosis. You then proceeded to change
the topic.
> So, if someone asks you what 'Gnosis' means, you should correctly asnwer,
I'd correctly say "gnosis" denotes the spiritual knowledge
claimed by the gnostics (e.g. the Marcionites, the
Valentinians, the Sethians, the Naasenes), for example that the
Creator of this world isn't God.
> that it means different things to different people, to which you yourself
> don't all agree.
> Except, if you belief, that words have an inherent meaning, irrelevant of
> social practise. You haven't yet clarified if this is what you believe.
Yeah, I have. You haven't made it clear that you know how
to read.
> Its again a matter of definition of words. A sandpile is not really a
> single object, but a collection of many sandcorns, who simply cannot hold
> the same space.
Nope. A sandpile is an object which like many objects has
multiple parts. Those parts relate in such a way that two
sandpiles can combine into one, contrary to your claim material
objects are always separate.
Clouds are another example; when two clouds merge into one
they prove you empirically wrong.
Moggin:
> > From what I've heard, there's now enough food to go around
> > -- enough for both your neighbor and you.
Mike:
> That maybe, then distribution is the problem -
Not in the practical sense -- there's plenty of trucks and
boats -- but in the economic one: the capitalist system
doesn't distribute the necessities of life to all the folks who
need them, even when they're fully available.
Moggin:
> > The money is my bank account is all zero's
> > and one's, not just because it's a small amount, but also
> > because that's how the bank works: it uses computers to keep a
> > running tally rather than storing my dollars and coins in a
> > big safe. So the money credited to me could easily be credited
> > to you, too. Just a bookkeeping issue.
Mike:
> Exactly. But don't you think you are escaping the issue?
No issue to escape. I'm explaining why you're in wrong to
say the money in my bank account couldn't also be in the
account belonging to you. I also reminded you we can both have
the same song, despite your idea that if you want to have
something, then I couldn't have it, too. Maybe you should stop
and think this stuff through.
> Well, and multiplicity can be reduced to duality.
Not necessarily, no. It might simply be multiple, with no
fundamental dualities.
> It needs duality for multiplicity to be there, don't you think?
No, I think that you're wrong. No need for multiple items
to be ordered dualistically. They could be organized in
trinities, quaternities, etc. -- or they might be flying around
in no special pattern.
> If it's not fundamental to this (your) belief, why then do you quarrel?
> If it's just a side issue for which it is famous, why all this concern of
> dilution into broad New Age terms?
You're confused. Dualism isn't a side-issue in gnosticism.
It also isn't what you're describing there.
Moggin:
> > Now you've descended from asserting an actuality to making
> > a proposal to giving your opinion.
Mike:
> I thought that's a given. It's self-evident, when someone speaks up. Its
> just you who turned it into an absolutist remark, it was never meant to
> be. It was pointed though, and I think it touches on an essential problem
> other, later philosophies have tried to solve. But as you choose to freeze
> an old philosophy, disallowing it any interaction with any of these
> problems, and more modern solutions to it, you are merely dealing with a
> sceleton, a fosil.
I'm dealing with a fossil right now, Grand-Dad. Get the doc
to give you some new medicine.
Moggin:
> > Your supposed "actuality" is just a fable you
> > like to recite.
Mike:
> You were doing well in erasing the quote it refered to.
You're doing a bad job of dodging. Fact is you were telling
a just-so story, nothing more.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
[gnosticism]
> > The word denotes
> > -- by definition -- the gnostics' thinking, history, and
> > practices.
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> Ah, I see, by definition. By definition of whom?
I've quoted the definitions _and_ named my sources must be
a dozen times by now, maybe more. If you haven't twigged
yet, then you simply don't have enough intelligence to carry on
a simple conversation.
Moggin:
> > If a dictionary entry described them as faithful
> > Creator-worshippers, it would be mistaken according to the
> > contents of the historical sources, which say they rejected the
> > Creator's claim to be God.
Mike:
> Which is not what I am saying.
I didn't say that was what you were saying. Evidently the
idea of an example goes over your head.
Moggin:
> > Gnosis refers by definition to the
> > spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
> > Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
> > isn't the Creator of this world.
Mike:
> By whos definition?
I've quoted the definitions _and_ named my sources must be
a dozen times by now -- maybe more. If you haven't twigged
yet, then you simply don't have enough intelligence to carry on
a simple conversation.
> Mind-reader.
No, all I'm reading are the words you write. In one bunch
of those words you gave an argument that if it had worked
would have justified using the word "gnosis" in a generic sense.
But it failed miserably.
> There is no justification involved
I agree. You attempted a justification, but you failed to
find one that worked.
> only an acknowledgement of the factual.
No, your argument was un-factual. You falsely claimed the
English language lacked any term for mystical knowledge
aside from "gnosis" (how you missed "mystical knowledge" offers
a minor mystery).
> While your only resort are fozen and empty dictionary
> definitions, according to your own admission.
You're lying again. I've never said those definitions are
empty or frozen. You're welcome to criticize them, if you
believe that they're flawed, but try to think up something more
than calling them names.
> The so-called Gnostics
> didn't even call themselves Gnostics!
Yeah, they did -- not all of them, it seems, but enough to
notice. Again, you're just another one of the idiots who
insists on pontificating about the gnostics even though you
don't know the first thing about them. Seems like a compulsion
with some people.
> You are really fighting against wind-mills.
A confederacy of dunces.
> No. You are wrong again.
I'm dead-on. Since you already offered an -- unsuccessful
-- justification for a generic meaning of "gnosis," you're
obviously bullshitting when you tell me your interest is purely
historical.
-- Moggin
shriven leper
wrote:
>will...@yahoo.com:
>
>> The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
>
> Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
Good reply, and we Sankhya for the explanation.
- sl -
will...@yahoo.com
>
>> Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
>>
will...@yahoo.com
>
Pearl
Awakening to Gnosis
« Older Messages 26 - 50 of 52 in topic - view as tree - 8
new Newer »
willy...@yahoo.com Feb 28, 2:06 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: willy...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Feb 2005 14:06:20 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> Was it not the infamous nuvoadam (or Krag? or NakedApe?)
> who last made the hugely erroneous statement that
> Gnosticism "ain't dualistic"...?
There's ain't no such thing as a 'gnosticism' - that's a metaphysical
statement. Gnosis knows no 'isms', period, whether a Krag, a NakedApe,
a Moogin, or a Leper. All 'isms' are part and parcel of the world
speculation.
Reply
willy...@yahoo.com Feb 28, 2:14 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: willy...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Feb 2005 14:14:18 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> What facts have I denied?
That gnosis is Knowledge of the Real?
> If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
> they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
> Those dualisms have been amply demonstrated in the past in ARG.
The Emperor is now shown to be naked.
> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
> of the word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
There are many 'isms' in the world of metaphysical speculation.
> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are
> deliberately misleading and false.
So, it's down to judging who is a gnostic and who isn't. If you're not
willing to adopt to the dualistic metaphysic, then you're not a
gnostic?
> All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely
> interested in seeking true Gnosis.
Do you think you'll gain gnosis through fuzzy metaphysical speculation?
Reply
willy...@yahoo.com Feb 28, 2:31 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: willy...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Feb 2005 14:31:57 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 2:31 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Bob Hopeless wrote:
> TM per se likely has no effect at all on
> intelligence, or anything else for that matter.
There's no such thing as "TM", Jeff - you made that up.
> Well over 90% of people quit almost immediately thus
> demonstrating that well over 90% of people's intelligence,
> at least, isn't impaired.
If there's no such thing as TM how could they start it, Mr. Hopeless?
> A temporary stupidity does occur however when the
> religious-philosophy, mis-labelled the 'science of
> creative intelligence', concocted by the 'maharishi',
> is bought into by people who, presumably, need to
> believe in some kind of fairy tale at all costs,
> who are yet not necessarily stupid in the traditional
> sense and who actually continue to do TM.
Apparently you can't even define what TM is, much less what it does or
doesn't do. Can you define what TM is? I think not, and in over five
years of dialog with you, I've yet to see a definition from you. Now
you're spouting off on alt.gnostic.religion - to what end? Can you
define 'gnostic'?
Oh! I get it - TM is Gnosis!
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bob Hopeless wrote:
> TM per se likely has no effect at all on intelligence, or anything
else for
> that matter. Well over 90% of people quit almost immediately thus
> demonstrating that well over 90% of people's intelligence, at least,
isn't
> impaired. A temporary stupidity does occur however when the
> religious-philosophy, mis-labelled the 'science of creative
intelligence',
> concocted by the 'maharishi', is bought into by people who,
presumably, need
> to believe in some kind of fairy tale at all costs, who are yet not
> necessarily stupid in the traditional sense and who actually continue
to do
> TM. Once infected, the TMer will attempt to re-interpret all
religions and
> philosophies in light of their special knowledge and understanding,
> verified, or so they've been led to believe, by their own direct
experience
> of a transcendent ultimate reality via TM, but which is simply a
slight
> pause in the thinking process in which the mind forgets itself for a
second
> or two, which happens to everyone all the time anyway, and which has
no
> significance whatever; bending and distorting the aforementioned
religions
> and philosophies with the pliers of their simplistic world view 'til
they
> become mere pale, inadequate reflections of the 'maharishi's' grand
model.
> Bob Hopeless
Reply
jst...@panix.com Feb 28, 2:56 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: jst...@panix.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Feb 2005 14:56:24 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Bob Hopeless wrote:
<snip>
> TM. Once infected, the TMer will attempt to re-interpret all
religions and
> philosophies in light of their special knowledge and understanding,
> verified, or so they've been led to believe, by their own direct
experience
> of a transcendent ultimate reality via TM
Just for da record, TMers are hardly the first to
see a common basis for all religions (not necessarily
philosophies; that's a red herring), nor are they the
first to have been be led to this notion via their
own direct experiences of a transcendent ultimate
reality. That knowledge and understanding are not
unique to TM by any means. Indeed, it's ubiquitous
throughout history and across cultures, as Leibniz
recognized when he dubbed it the "Perennial Philosophy."
Reply
willy...@yahoo.com Feb 28, 4:33 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: willy...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 28 Feb 2005 16:33:34 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Judy Stein wrote:
> TMers are hardly the first to see a common
> basis for all religions (not necessarily
> philosophies; that's a red herring),
Ms Stein - Just for the record, there's no such thing as a 'TMer', so
it's a moot point if they 'see a common basis in all religions'.
> nor are they the first to have been be led to this
> notion via their own direct experiences of a
> transcendent ultimate reality.
Non-sequitur.
> That knowledge and understanding are not
> unique to TM by any means. Indeed, it's ubiquitous
> throughout history and across cultures, as Leibniz
> recognized when he dubbed it the "Perennial Philosophy.
Huxley's Perennial Philosophy.
Gnosticism: A 'belief' that salvation is achieved through
transcendental knowledge.
Gnosis: One who 'knows' through direct experience of the Transcendent
Real.
A "gnostic" is one who knows," one who cultivates the oportunity to
make contact with the Being, the Cosmic Conciousness. Unlike those who
follow their senses, a religion or seek to understand metaphysical
speculation, the gnostic fully expects to experience the saving grace
in his lifetime.
The primary ingredient in Gnosis is Initiation. The purpose of
initiation is not to explain the effects of the Fall but to overcome
its effects. The goal of initiation is gnosis - a direct, personal
experience with Being, within the constraints of the flawed human body.
The word 'gnosticism' is a word from the mouths of the ignorant.
"Even these days I hear some words "transcendentalism." It is the
transcendental field that is free from "isms". All "isms" belong to the
changing sphere of relative life. Every "ism" has some corresponding
branch of learning. This ism or this ism; transcendentalism is a word
from the mouth of the ignorant. There is nothing like
transcendentalism. Transcendental field of absolute is free from "ism."
It is pure intelligence, pure Being, pure existence."
http://www.rwilliams.us/archives/seven_states.htm
Reply
Fuzzie Jester Feb 28, 9:12 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: "Fuzzie Jester" <yeahri...@anarchy.org> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:12:43 +1300
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Michael Z." <hanu...@telda.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.28....@telda.net...
> Am Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:02:49 +1300 schrieb Fuzzie Jester:
>> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions of
the
>> word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
> Sure.
>> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
>> misleading and false.
> According to your philosophy.
No, according to the Gnostic sources themselves. You might actually try
reading them.
>> All they do is cloud the path for those genuinely interested in
seeking
>> true Gnosis.
> According to your philosophy. Point is you have no exclusive claim on
the
> word.You can point out your position as the only true one, no
problemo.
Once again, according to the Gnostic sources. What you, (seemingly),
and the New Agers
present as "Gnosticism" simply isn't it. It is an abortion of
gnosticism, just like the
filth that Yaldaboath created. Simply call whatever you want to present
by some other name
rather usurping and twisting other names to your own bent.
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Woman was God's second mistake."
"I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time."
"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the
torments of man."
--Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
Reply
Fuzzie Jester Feb 28, 9:14 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: "Fuzzie Jester" <yeahri...@anarchy.org> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:14:22 +1300
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
<willy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109628858....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> What facts have I denied?
> That gnosis is Knowledge of the Real?
>> If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
>> they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
> Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
> religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
>> Those dualisms have been amply demonstrated in the past in ARG.
> The Emperor is now shown to be naked.
>> If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
>> of the word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
> There are many 'isms' in the world of metaphysical speculation.
>> However, some of those so-called "understandings" are
>> deliberately misleading and false.
> So, it's down to judging who is a gnostic and who isn't. If you're
not
> willing to adopt to the dualistic metaphysic, then you're not a
> gnostic?
Now you are starting to get it!
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Woman was God's second mistake."
"I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time."
"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the
torments of man."
--Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900
)
Reply
carl amedio Feb 28, 10:35 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: "carl amedio" <c.ame...@worldnet.att.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:35:13 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 10:35 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
As i have already sated: what i list as dualities are simply aspects of
the
same/one eternal whole. Duality is a mecessary adaptation by man. We
can
only seem to think in these concepts.
Carl
"Kater Moggin" <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-07364...@news.verizon.net...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> carl amedio <c.ame...@worldnet.att.net>:
> > Gnosticism is not dualistc.
> Sheer nonsense. Gnosticism is very dualistic. It opposes
> the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine realm
> -- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes numerous
> other dualisms. Fullness versus deficiency. Eternity vs.
> time. Incorruptibility vs. corruption. Permanence vs.
> transience. Knowledge vs. ignorance. Uncreated versus created.
> Etc.
> -- Moggin
Reply
carl amedio Feb 28, 10:38 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: "carl amedio" <c.ame...@worldnet.att.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:38:33 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 28 2005 10:38 pm
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
You make my point very nicely
Carl
<willy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109628041....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > Sheer nonsense.
> The nonsense, Kater, is to take the Real for the unreal. The Real is
> the only Reality - the unreal is an illusion. Don't mistake the Real
> for mere metaphysical speculation. The pointing finger is not the
moon
> itself.
> > Gnosticism is very dualistic.
> There's no such thing as 'Gnosticism'; dualism is a metaphysical
> concept and has nothing to do with gnosis. Gnosis is the direct
> experience of the Real.
> > It opposes the true God to the Creator of this world, the divine
> > realm -- called the Pleroma -- to the Creation, and includes
> > numerous other dualisms.
> Pure speculation - rude metaphysics.
> There's nothing in the experience of man that would indicate that
there
> is a 'divine' Creator of this world, or that this world is a dulaism,
> or that the Pleroma was a dualist.
> > Fullness versus deficiency.
> Again, pure metaphysical speculation.
> > Eternity vs. time.
> Time is an illusion - in Reality there is no time or eternity.
> > Incorruptibility vs. corruption.
> Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Can you provide a single
> example of change in the universe?
> > Permanence vs. transience.
> Permanence too is an illusion and it's counter to experience.
> Everything changes, but it's pure specualtion that a person can cause
> the base elements to change. Please provide a single instance of
anyone
> ever causing change at will.
> > Knowledge vs. ignorance.
> Ignorance is nescience; knowledge is gnosis; where there is gnosis,
> there is no nescience. In Sanskrit, ignorance is avidya; knowledge in
> Sanskrit is jnana. Where there is jnana, there is no avidya.
> > Uncreated versus created.
> More metaphysics. It is a myth that this world was created - second
law
> of thermodynamics. Any evidence otherwise?
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 1:27 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:27:57 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 1:27 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Michael Z. <hanu...@telda.net>:
> Listen, I never give orders.
Listen, you've been giving orders right here; about how to
speak about unity, for example, and about how to reply to
others' use of words. I could probably find more illustrations
if I looked.
[unity and separation]
> The examples you cite aren't really accurate.
The examples I gave are highly accurate, but you can throw
out the scriptural one if you want to.
> Two sand piles can turn into one
Precisely -- and when two sandpiles turn into one, they're
no longer divided from each other, showing that material
objects are not necessarily separated in the "world of time and
space."
> put they will take up the double space as well
Nonetheless, the two sand piles have become _one_ sandpile.
Their former separation is removed.
> The two individual sandcorns cannot penetrate each other.
So what? When the two sandpiles become one sandpile, they
demonstrate that material objects _don't_ always remain
separate in the "world of time and space." Your observation is
empirically false.
> With clouds it is the same.
Damn right it is. When two clouds merge together, they're
another counter-example to your idea material objects are
necessarily separated in the world of time and space. I'm sure
you can think of more.
> Thats
> actually the reason it rains, because when the humidity at a certain
space
> gets too heavy, it cannot all be contained. I am sure you do not deny
the
> problems of time and space.
Uh-huh. Time and space cause all sorts of problems. Very
bad ideas, both of them.
> Ever tried to book a plane ticket, when the plane was sold out?
Wouldn't need to take a plane if things weren't spread all
out all over the place. On the other hand, without space
things could get pretty crowded. Just one, big traffic jam, as
it were.
> Why do you think there are problems of hunger and
> poverty in the world? Because the food that nourishes my neighbour
cannot
> nourish me anymore.
From what I've heard, there's now enough food to go around
-- enough for both your neighbor and you. The problem is
merely that it _isn't_ going around, so the blame lies with the
economic system, namely capitalism.
> And the money that is on your bankaccount cannot be on mine as well.
Sure it could. The money is my bank account is all zero's
and one's, not just because it's a small amount, but also
because that's how the bank works: it uses computers to keep a
running tally rather than storing my dollars and coins in a
big safe. So the money credited to me could easily be credited
to you, too. Just a bookkeeping issue.
> Therefore, it means that if I want to have something, it
> means you cannot have the very same thing.
Depends what the thing is. We can both have the same song.
> I think this is fairly
> understood. This is the problem of separation in a dualistic world.
This
> separation is the problem we all have, its the hallmark of duality.
Not so. The illustrations that you gave all aimed to
show difficulties in a world of multiplicity, or what Buddhists
call the "ten thousand things." Lots of things spread all
over the place, divided in various ways -- _that's_ what you're
describing. Not duality.
> As you say, this is the foundation of your philosophy.
No, that isn't close to what I said. I said gnosticism is
famously dualistic, and I gave two examples: spirit vs.
matter and God vs. the demiurge -- that is, the Creator of this
world.
Mike:
> Its my opinion of course.
Now you've descended from asserting an actuality to making
a proposal to giving your opinion.
> These non-sensical interceptions really don't do anything. Refute it
or
> leave it.
Or point out your supposed "actuality" is just a fable you
like to recite.
-- Moggin
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 1:30 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:30:32 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 1:30 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Fuzzie Jester <N...@getlost.com>:
> > If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
of the
> > word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
> > However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
> > misleading and false.
Michael Z. <hanu...@telda.net>:
> According to your philosophy.
No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
sources.
> Point is you have no exclusive claim on the word.
Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
isn't the Creator of this world.
Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
the term are full of holes.
-- Moggin
Reply
Fuzzie Jester Mar 1, 1:34 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: "Fuzzie Jester" <yeahri...@anarchy.org> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:34:47 +1300
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 1:34 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
"Kater Moggin" <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:kimmerian-00CE0...@news.verizon.net...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Fuzzie Jester <N...@getlost.com>:
>> > If by your reference to "different understandings and definitions
of the
>> > word", you mean "Gnosticism", then you are correct.
>> > However, some of those so-called "understandings" are deliberately
>> > misleading and false.
> Michael Z. <hanu...@telda.net>:
>> According to your philosophy.
> No, Mike -- according to the the evidence in the historical
> sources.
>> Point is you have no exclusive claim on the word.
> Point is the word gnosis refers by definition to the
> spiritual knowledge claimed by the gnostics -- the
> Valentinians, Marcionites, Sethians, and so on -- frex that God
> isn't the Creator of this world.
> Related point: your attempted justifications for widening
> the term are full of holes.
> -- Moggin
Thank you. :-)
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Hell is other people."
"Man is a useless passion. "
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 2:05 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:05:25 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 2:05 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Fuzzie Jester <N...@getlost.com>:
> > If anyone can honestly suggest that Gnosticism is not dualistic,
> > they have some serious reading comprehension issues.
True. The dualities in gnosticism are hard to miss unless
you're really trying.
> Can you honestly suggest that the Levantine 'gnostics' called their
> religion 'gnosticism', whehter dualistic or not?
Can you honestly claim anybody here is saying the gnostics
of antiquity called their beliefs "gnosticism"? No, you
can't. And can you honestly deny that I explained the word was
a later coinage? No, you can't.
-- Moggin
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 2:05 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:05:51 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 2:05 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> statement.
-- Moggin
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 2:07 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:07:40 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 2:07 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
Moggin:
willy:
> Pure speculation
-- Moggin
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 2:08 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:08:38 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 2:08 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> The word 'Gosticism'
-- Moggin
Reply
Kater Moggin Mar 1, 2:09 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
From: Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:09:40 GMT
Local: Tues, Mar 1 2005 2:09 am
Subject: Re: Awakening to Gnosis
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
> The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
-- Moggin
<groaning loudly and awarding Moggin the worst pun of 2005 award>
Sandy
Pearl
> The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
-- Moggin
<groaning loudly and giving Moggin the Usenet Razzie Award for Worst
Pun of 2005>
Sandy
Bob Hopeless
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
> [unity]
>
> > I just defined it.
>
> Nah, you just gave orders about how to talk about it, with
> no definition. Not that I'm asking.
>
> > A complete Unity, that doesn't exclude anything.The
> > problem with duality is, that it's intrinsically materialistic.
>
> Problem with you is you're hypnotized by trinkets that you
> mistake for meaningful ideas.
Problem with those trinkets mistaken for meaningful ideas by which people
crave to be hypnotised, is their promise of bliss and escape from the
sufferings of this world. Problem with Michael's Unity is that it unites a
transcendental reality whose nature is bliss, with this apparent world whose
nature most definitely isn't, and the logical difficulty the unhypnotised
have of understanding how a transcendental perfect blissful substance
permeates through-and-through a suffering imperfect world.
Bob Hopeless
will...@yahoo.com
> The word "Gnosticism" refers to the ideas, the history and
> the practices of the gnostics, e.g. the Sethians, the
> Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites. Central themes
> include the division of the Creator of this world from the
> true God and a similarly negative view of the Creation, seen as
> an exile or prison.
>
"to know". It has not been established that the Sethians, the Naasenes,
the Valentinians and the Marcionites "knew" in the sense that hey had
obtained a special knowledge. They could have been just as confused
metaphysicaly as other sectarians about the Ultimate Reality.
Kater Moggin
> > The word "Gnosticism" refers to the ideas, the history and
> > the practices of the gnostics, e.g. the Sethians, the
> > Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites. Central themes
> > include the division of the Creator of this world from the
> > true God and a similarly negative view of the Creation, seen as
> > an exile or prison.
> The word "gnostic" refers to those who "know" - from the Greek gnosis -
> "to know".
More accurately, the word "gnostic" denotes "a believer in
gnosticism" (quoting the American Heritage Dictionary), "an
adherent of gnosticism" (Merriam-Webster). "Gnosticism" refers
to:
The thought and practice especially of various
cults of late pre-Christian and early
Christian centuries distinguished by the
conviction that matter is evil and that
emancipation comes through gnosis
(Merriam-Webster)
The doctrines of certain pre-Christian
pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that
valued the revealed knowledge of God and
of the origin and end of the human race as a
means to attain redemption for the spiritual
element in humans and that distinguished the
Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being.
(American Heritage)
To repeat: gnosis is linked to the gnostics, gnostics are
believers in gnosticism, and gnosticism refers to certain
ancient schools, Christian and otherwise, that divided God from
the Creator of this world.
I think that the same terms can be applied by extension to
others -- frex the Cathars and Bogomils -- who share the
ancient gnostics' basic point of view, but I realize I'm taking
a liberal approach.
Incidentally, the bit about pre-Christian gnostic sects is
out of date. That was once a popular theory, but the
confirming evidence never turned up, so we're left with an open
question.
> It has not been established that the Sethians, the Naasenes,
> the Valentinians and the Marcionites "knew" in the sense that hey had
> obtained a special knowledge. They could have been just as confused
> metaphysicaly as other sectarians about the Ultimate Reality.
It's very special that you counted all the marshmallows in
your box of Lucky Charms, but that doesn't make you into a
gnostic, whether or not you counted them correctly. Just means
you had some spare time.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> > The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
> >> Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
willy:
> So, you're a Sanskrit reader?
So, it flew right by you. Maybe you noticed the whooshing
sound.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Problem with those trinkets mistaken for meaningful ideas by which people
> crave to be hypnotised, is their promise of bliss and escape from the
> sufferings of this world.
That part I like. Bliss and escape from sufferings sounds
good to me.
> Problem with Michael's Unity is that it unites a
> transcendental reality whose nature is bliss, with this apparent world whose
> nature most definitely isn't, and the logical difficulty the unhypnotised
> have of understanding how a transcendental perfect blissful substance
> permeates through-and-through a suffering imperfect world.
Yeah, I know what you mean -- same thought crossed my mind.
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
>> The word "gnostic" refers to those who "know" - from the Greek gnosis -
>> "to know".
>
> More accurately, the word "gnostic" denotes "a believer in
> gnosticism" (quoting the American Heritage Dictionary), "an adherent of
> gnosticism" (Merriam-Webster). "Gnosticism" refers to:
->(my comments within brackets)
|| Gnosticism ||
The doctrine of *salvation by knowledge*. This definition, based on the
etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"),
is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the
*predominant*, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas
Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul
attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power,
i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it
places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a
quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic
formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew",
and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings,
whose present and future status was essentially different from that of
those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and
historical definition of Gnosticism would be:
A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and
pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before
the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while
borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief
religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to
be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of
the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the
*overcoming of the grossness* of matter and the return to the
Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and
facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.
However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity,
multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of
another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a
generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost.
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
->(this and the following two references are from the Catholoic
Encyclopedia,and have therefore probably a tendency to them. But so have
most sources of Gnosticism.
The central theme of libration through knowledge is identical to Advaita
Vedanta, to Jnana Yoga, and the idea of matter as a depravation of deity
is clearly present in the theory of Samsara, which is both central to
Buddhist and any Indian thought.Knowledge is seen of a means to escape
from the fetters of Samsara)
|| Marcionites || II. DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE
We must distinguish between the doctrine of Marcion himself and that of
his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. *He wanted a Christianity
untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism.* Christianity was
the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil
or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old
Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the
refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old
Testament had to be set aside. The two great obstacles in his way he
removed by drastic measures. He had to account for the existence of the
Old Testament and he accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a
demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just,
rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who
was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The metaphysical relation between
these two gods troubled Marcion little; of divine emanation, aeons,
syzygies, eternally opposed principles of good and evil, he knows nothing.
from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
|| Valentinians ||
Valentinus, the best known and most influential of the Gnostic heretics..
He assumed, as the beginning of all things, the Primal Being or Bythos,
who after ages of silence and contemplation, gave rise to other beings by
a process of emanation. The first series of beings, the aeons, were thirty
in number, representing fifteen syzygies or pairs sexually complementary.
Through the weakness and sin of *Sophia*, one of the lowest aeons, the
lower world with its sujection to matter is brought into existence. Man,
the highest being in the lower world, participates in both the psychic and
the hylic (material) nature, and the work of redemption consists in
freeing the higher, the spiritual, from its servitude to the lower. This
was the word and mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Christology of
Valentinus is confusing in the extreme. He seems to have maintained the
existence of three redeeming beings, but Christ the Son of Mary did not
have a real body and did not suffer. The system of Valentinus was
extremely comprehensive, and was worked out to cover all phases of thought
and action. While Valentinus was alive he made many disciples, and his
system was the most widely diffused of all the forms of Gnosticism. His
school was divided into two branches, the Oriental and the Italian. The
former was spread through Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, the latter in
Rome, Italy, and Southern Gaul. Among the more prominent disciples of
Valentinus, who, however, did not slavishly follow their master in all his
views, were Heracleon, Ptolemy, Marcos, and Bardesanes. Many of the
writings of these Gnostics, and a large number of excerpts from the
writings of Valentinus, are still in existence. Tertullian ascribes to him
the apocryphal Gospel of Valentinus, which, according to Irenaeus, was the
same as the "Gospel of Truth".
from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15256a.htm
->(the next two references are not from the catholic site:)
Valentinians believed that God is incomprehensible and cannot be known
directly. Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite,
without beginning or end and is the *ultimate origin of all things*. He
encompasses all things without being encompassed. Everything including the
world lies within the deity and continues to be part of it. The Godhead
manifests itself through a process of self-unfolding in the subsequent
multiplicity of being while maintaining its unity.
-> (The above description is strongly reminescent of Indian thought,
especially of the Upanishadic descriptions of *Brahman*. The description
how everything lies within the deity, echos the Purusha sukta of the Rig
Veda)
Valentinians believed that God is *androgynous* and frequently depicted
him as a male-female dyad. This is related to the notion that God provides
the universe with both form and substance. The feminine aspect of the
deity is called Silence, Grace and Thought. Silence is God's primordial
state of tranquillity and self-awareness She is also the active creative
Thought that makes all subsequent states of being (or "Aeons")
substantial. The masculine aspect of God is Depth, also called Ineffable
and First Father. Depth is the profoundly incomprehensible,
all-encompassing aspect of the deity. He is essentially passive, yet when
moved to action by his feminine Thought, he gives the universe form. The
Son
- > (the above is strongly reminiscent of Indian Tantric traditions, the
Shiva-Shakti duality)
The *origin of the universe is described as a process of emanation from
the Godhead.* The male and female aspects of the Father, acting in
conjunction, manifested themselves in the Son. The Son is also often
depicted by Valentinians as a male-female dyad. The Son manifests himself
in twenty-six spiritual entities or Aeons arranged into male-female pairs.
The arrangement and names of the Aeons will not be discussed here. They
represent the energies immanent within Son and were seen as part of his
personality. Together they constitute the Fullness (pleroma) of the
Godhead.
The Fall
The Aeons who are manifested by the Son are conceived as having some
degree of psychological independence. They lie within God but are
separated from him by a Limit or boundary. As a result, they do not know
the one who brought them into being. The Aeons sensed that they were
incomplete and longed to know their origin.
This longing passed to Sophia (Wisdom), the youngest of the Aoens. On
behalf of the whole Fullness, she took up the quest to know the supreme
Parent. She attempted to know him by *thinking* alone, something that is
impossible. As a result, she became separated from her consort and fell
into a state of deficiency and suffering. Through the power of Limit,
Sophia was divided in two. Her higher part was returned to her consort but
her lower part was separated from the Fullness into a lower realm along
with the deficiency and suffering. This lower realm is identical with the
physical world.
- > (This distinction between higher and lower nature is also depicted in
Indian Shaktism. Shakti, the feminine part of God, is lower nature, the
Prakriti of Sankhya, and She is Adi- or Para-Shakti, the supreme
transcendental force. As Saraswathy or Sarada, she is the embodiment of
wisdom. The Shankara tradition, who propagates *liberation through
knowledge* has therefore Sarada, the Goddess of wisdom as their tutelary
deity.)
Valentinians envisioned the universe as a series of concentric spheres.
The innermost sphere is the world or deficiency where the lower Sophia was
exiled. Enclosing this is the Fullness (pleroma) where the Aeons are. The
Aeons are enclosed within the Son. The outermost sphere which encompasses
the Son is where the Father (Depth and Silence) is. There is a boundary or
Limit between God and the Fullness. There is a second boundary or Limit
between the Fullness and the deficiency. *Just as the Fullness is a
product of the Godhead and lies within it, so also the realm of deficiency
is a product of the Fullness and lies within it.* The deficiency arose as
result of ignorance and it will be dissolved through knowledge (gnosis).
- > (Again this is strongly reminescent of the Maya theory of Vedanta.
Maya is within Brahman, but it is not the whole of Brahman. Likewise in
the whole Vedic system, Creation is pictured within God, but not the whole
of God, as the Rig Veda mentions, only 1/4 th manifested, leaving the
Fullness indeed unchanged. Vedanta also destinguishes between Higher
Knowledge, pertaining to higher spiritual Truths, and lower Knowledge,
pertaining to lower nature.)
Through the mediation of the Son, the Aeons within the Fullness were given
knowledge (gnosis) of God and received rest. All of the Aeons then joined
together in celebration and became completely integrated into the
personality of the Son. The reintegrated Son is also called the Savior. He
is destined to be the male partner or bridegroom of the fallen Sophia. He
is surrounded by a retinue of angels who were brought forth in honor of
the Aeons.
The lower Sophia, trapped in the realm of deficiency, continued to suffer
the emotional torments of grief, fear and confusion. As a result of her
ignorance, she was trapped in a state of illusion and was unable to
distinguish what was real and what unreal. She underwent a conversion when
she thought of the light and she began to plead for assistance. In
response, her bridegroom, the Savior, and his retinue of angels descended
through the Limit to her. Through knowledge (gnosis) of the eternal realm
she was freed of illusion and suffering.
The lower Sophia rejoiced at the sight of the Savior and his retinue of
angels, and brought forth spiritual seeds in their image. These seeds are
the spiritual element present in every Christian. For this reason the
seeds are referred to as the spiritual Church. Just as the Savior is the
bridegroom of the lower Sophia, so also the angels will be the bridegrooms
of the spiritual seeds at the end of time.
- > (note that in the Indian system each male god has a female
counterpart, Shakti, which epidomizes his dynamic side. There is a famous
story in which the creator God Brahma [not to be confused with the
impersonal Brahman] lusts after his own daughter, who dances around him,
and therefore adopts 4 heads. Because of his lust, and his involvment in
Maya, he is not worshipped in India [with the exception of only 2 temples
in the whole of India]. There is also the famous story where Vishnu and
Brahma were competing for supremacy, while a golden column of light
appeared, unfathomble to both ends.Bothe Vishnu and Brahma competed about
who could reach either end first, Vishnu down and Brahma flew up. As
nobody could reach the end, Brahma still pretended that he had reached the
end. Because of this lying he was punished to not be worshipped anymore,
and having a denigrated status. He is not a demon like some gnostics would
maybe call the demiurg, but he is clearly of a lower status, and his
knowledge is veiled. Therfore clear parallels are there.)
from:http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm
|| The Sethian Gnostics ||
Perhaps the most important of the Gnostic sects are the Sethians. The
term "Sethian Gnostics" is a modern one; and some scholars have even
suggested this is a totally artificial classification. But it is apparent
that a number of Nag Hammadi texts do share a great deal in common as
regards their cosmology and terminology, so for the sake of convenience we
can refer to these as "Sethian".
The Sethians are so-called because, naturally, they hold the biblical
character of Seth up as a savior-figure. So Seth is to the non-Christian
Gnostics what Christ is to the Christians.
<snip>
In the later (i.e. 200 C.E. on; stages (4) and (5) above) Sethian writings
there is the tendency towards *monism,* a somewhat more *positive*
attitude toward the material world, and, in Zostrianos and Marsanes, a
more elaborate and sophisticated account of the various planes of
existence, including the sub-spiritual (sub-pleromatic) realms [Ibid,
pp.83-5].from: http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/Sethian.htm
- >(From this last remark, you can see that Gnosticsm developed, with a
leaning towards monism. Therefore comparisons with indian Advaita Vedanta
are not out of place.)
Katers definitions and representation of Gnosticsim is one-sided, as he
ignores all the parallels that are there, in favour of stressing certain
pecularities, which are especially enounced with the Marcionites. One
could probaly say that Kater thinks of himself as a Marcionite, the
most radical of the Gnostics. But as you can see in the article above,
the Marcionites extreme stance against the demiurg was largely a
reaction to the creator-god of Judaism, apart from the not really
scepticism about creation as matter and being a sort of a prison. All
these ideas have been there before. I think it would be wrong to see
these doctrines refering to the demiurg as independend from the
historic situation in which they developed (just think that at these
times roman emporers demanded to be worshipped as earthly representatives
of God! And the laws of all ancient societies were being treated as
having been given by God as well!) For example Kater thinks that the
Valentinians, who are the most influential group, were too liberal. That
maybe as it maybe, but he hardly can represent Gnosticism as it is.
Michael Z.
> But as you can see in the article above,
> the Marcionites extreme stance against the demiurg was largely a
> reaction to the creator-god of Judaism, apart from the not really
> scepticism about creation as matter and being a sort of a prison.
Correction:
The above sentence should read: '...apart from the not really
*new* scepticism about creation as matter and being a sort of a prison.'
will...@yahoo.com
>>>
>>>> Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
>>>>
>>
> So, it flew right by you.
>
it's probably the oldest dualist doctrine and the source of Hindu,
Taoist, Buddhist, and Manichaean philosophy. Long before the the
Christian Gnostics, Kapila postulated a radical dualism having 32
evolutes. I guess this all flew right past you, since you're limited to
translations. When are you going to start reading them?
Kater:
> Maybe you noticed the whooshing sound.
>
Maybe I noticed that you're not a Sanskrit reader.
Kater Moggin
> > The word "gnostic" denotes "a believer in
> > gnosticism" (quoting the American Heritage Dictionary), "an
> > adherent of gnosticism" (Merriam-Webster).
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> Katers definitions and representation of Gnosticsim is one-sided, as he
> ignores all the parallels that are there, in favour of stressing certain
> pecularities, which are especially enounced with the Marcionites.
Mike Z. is full of crap, like usual. The things that I've
mentioned -- the gnostics' division of the Creator of this
world from the true God and their correspondingly negative view
of the Creation -- are central to gnosticism, not ideas
peculiar to the Marcionites. These themes are easy to see even
in the Valentinians, moderates by gnostic standards, as I
pointed out when I quoted Heracleon calling this world a "total
mountain of evil."
> One could probaly say that Kater thinks of himself as a Marcionite, the
> most radical of the Gnostics. But as you can see in the article above,
> the Marcionites extreme stance against the demiurg was largely a
> reaction to the creator-god of Judaism
In case you haven't noticed, the Creator-God of mainstream
Judaism and Christianity _is_ the demiurge, the fella who
makes this world. Gnostics -- Marcionites included --
disparage the Creator and his Creation, rejecting the
demiurge's claim to be God and considering the world he made to
be, e.g., a prison, exile, or labyrinth.
> of God! And the laws of all ancient societies were being treated as
> having been given by God as well!) For example Kater thinks that the
> Valentinians, who are the most influential group, were too liberal. That
> maybe as it maybe, but he hardly can represent Gnosticism as it is.
Exactly wrong. From my perspective, the Valentinians were
in some ways too conservative -- that is, insufficiently
radical. But even _they_ denied that the Creator of this world
was the true God, and even they saw the cosmos as a "total
mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts," quoting
Heracleon (Frag. 20) again.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> >>> The foundation of all Indian spiritual literature is the Sankhya
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
> >>>> Explaining why Indian spiritual literature is decaffinated.
willy:
> >> So, you're a Sanskrit reader?
Kater:
> > So, it flew right by you. Maybe you noticed the whooshing
> > sound.
willy:
> Maybe I noticed that you're not a Sanskrit reader.
There's that whooshing sound again. Hint: it wasn't made
by an airplane.
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
> Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>
>> > The word "gnostic" denotes "a believer in
>> > gnosticism" (quoting the American Heritage Dictionary), "an adherent
>> > of gnosticism" (Merriam-Webster).
>
> Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
>
>> Katers definitions and representation of Gnosticsim is one-sided, as he
>> ignores all the parallels that are there, in favour of stressing
>> certain pecularities, which are especially enounced with the
>> Marcionites.
>
> Mike Z. is full of crap, like usual.
Just as an aside Kater: Starting every post with an insult neither
strenghthens your position, nor do insults have anything to do with being
uncompromising.
> The things that I've
> mentioned -- the gnostics' division of the Creator of this world from
> the true God and their correspondingly negative view of the Creation --
> are central to gnosticism, not ideas peculiar to the Marcionites.
That I didn't deny. It's obvious from the above quotes as also from the
quote of the other post I did, differentiating Gnosis and Gnosticism. What
I point out, is that you *only* define Gnosticism by this aspect, leaving
off other aspects,like the central theme of 'liberation by knowledge'.
Onesided doesn't mean that what you say is totally wrong. It rather
referes to what you leave aside.
> These themes are easy to see even
> in the Valentinians, moderates by gnostic standards, as I pointed out
> when I quoted Heracleon calling this world a "total mountain of evil."
>
>> One could probaly say that Kater thinks of himself as a Marcionite, the
>> most radical of the Gnostics. But as you can see in the article above,
>> the Marcionites extreme stance against the demiurg was largely a
>> reaction to the creator-god of Judaism
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the Creator-God of mainstream
> Judaism and Christianity _is_ the demiurge, the fella who makes this
> world.
Sure, hard to miss.
> Gnostics -- Marcionites included --
> disparage the Creator and his Creation, rejecting the demiurge's claim
> to be God and considering the world he made to be, e.g., a prison,
> exile, or labyrinth.
>
>> of God! And the laws of all ancient societies were being treated as
>> having been given by God as well!) For example Kater thinks that the
>> Valentinians, who are the most influential group, were too liberal.
>> That maybe as it maybe, but he hardly can represent Gnosticism as it
>> is.
>
> Exactly wrong. From my perspective, the Valentinians were
> in some ways too conservative -- that is, insufficiently radical. But
> even _they_ denied that the Creator of this world was the true God, and
> even they saw the cosmos as a "total mountain of evil, a deserted
> dwelling place of beasts," quoting Heracleon (Frag. 20) again.
Yes, Moggin. But as I pointed out, that isn't too far anymore from the
Oriental position of the Hindu's who just think the same: That the Creator
God (Brahma) isn't the true God either. He just isn't a devil, but
certainly deluded and obscured. And that creation is a pile of shit,
prakriti (nature) being the cause of untold suffering, obscuration of the
true,illusion -Maya- is a Hindu and Buddhist notion as well. And as
pointed out in the quote, the Valentines relativited their negative stance
against creation somewhat.
So, the only difference to general Hindu positions seems to be, that
certain groups of Gnostics viewed the creator as being a devil,that
Hinduism would never say. But that seems to be a relative and historic
position, at least not the single most important distinguishing feature,
and as I think was relativated by the Valentines later on.
Therefore I find you representation inaccurate.
Kater Moggin
> > Mike Z. is full of crap, like usual. The things that I've
> > mentioned -- the gnostics' division of the Creator of this
> > world from the true God and their correspondingly negative view
> > of the Creation -- are central to gnosticism, not ideas
> > peculiar to the Marcionites. These themes are easy to see even
> > in the Valentinians, moderates by gnostic standards, as I
> > pointed out when I quoted Heracleon calling this world a "total
> > mountain of evil."
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> Just as an aside Kater: Starting every post with an insult neither
> strenghthens your position, nor do insults have anything to do with being
> uncompromising.
Mike, you ignorant slut: filling your posts with
bullshit neither strengthens your claims nor makes you any less
of a doofus. Just an aside.
> What I point out, is that you *only* define Gnosticism by this aspect, leaving
> off other aspects,like the central theme of 'liberation by knowledge'.
What you point is out false, as usual. I explicitly named
the division of God from the Creator of this world as an
_example_ of gnosis, not its only feature. Second time now the
concept of an example went by you.
Liberation by knowledge is important, too, but if you stop
to think about it for a minute or two, you'll realize
liberation here means liberation from the Creator and the world
he rules. Part of the same theme.
> Yes, Moggin. But as I pointed out, that isn't too far anymore from the
> Oriental position of the Hindu's who just think the same:
But nothing. You pointed out you weren't sure what Hindus
said -- and as I replied, whatever they do or not say is
precisely no objection to the points I've made about gnosticism.
> pointed out in the quote, the Valentines relativited their negative stance
> against creation somewhat.
Again, even the Valentinians, who were mild-mannered folks
as gnostics go, considered this cosmos to be a "total
mountain of evil" -- Heracleon, Fragment 20 -- a world of death
from the moment one is born (Theodotus in Clement's
_Excerpta_ 80.1), a nightmare (Valentinus, or whoever wrote the
Gospel of Truth), a place made of suffering from the ground
up (Ptolemy in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.4.2 and 1.5.4). All very
negative views of the Creation.
> So, the only difference to general Hindu positions seems to be, that
> certain groups of Gnostics viewed the creator as being a devil,that
> Hinduism would never say. But that seems to be a relative and historic
> position, at least not the single most important distinguishing feature,
> and as I think was relativated by the Valentines later on.
> Therefore I find you representation inaccurate.
Non sequitur, Mike. Your nattering about Hinduism is zero
evidence of any inaccuracy in my comments on the gnostics.
Either you're intentionally bullshitting, or you're just unable
to think clearly. Take your pick.
-- Moggin
Michael Z.
> Problem with Michael's Unity is that it unites a
> transcendental reality
Yes.
> whose nature is bliss,
When experienced
> with this *apparent* world whose
> nature most definitely isn't,
as experienced.
> and the logical difficulty the unhypnotised
> have of understanding how a transcendental perfect blissful substance
> permeates through-and-through a suffering imperfect world.
So, Bob, the problem I have with Dualism - and here I'm not suggesting
that Gnosticism ISN'T Dualism - so nothing to confuse here with another
discussion what it means to different people - problem I have with Dualism
is, if you speak of two things, one good, one bad, there must be a common
ground they stand on, to be even compared.If you have two objects, one big
one small, you must have dimension, space, of which these objects are
part. If one entity is Good, the other Bad, there must be a framework of
values, to be able to compare them.That is, two things, in order to enter
into any relationship, must share some common ground, and therefore, there
must be a field of Unity, which relates the two. Call it existence,
transcendence, intelligence or what you like. Of course, if there is
nothing transcendental, as you might believe, there is also nothing to be
united. The bliss-nature of this realm is of course only revealed, when it
is experienced. If it is not perceived, it is of course not experienced.
Michael Z.
>> Well, and multiplicity can be reduced to duality.
>
> Not necessarily, no. It might simply be multiple, with no
> fundamental dualities.
Where exactly would multiplicity start? With 3, 4 or ten?
>
>> It needs duality for multiplicity to be there, don't you think?
>
> No, I think that you're wrong. No need for multiple items
> to be ordered dualistically.
I didn't say multiple items have to be ordered dualisticly. I just say
that duality is the first form of multiplicity. If, according to you,
multiplicity creates problems and duality doesn't, you should tell me
where multiplicity starts and why.
> They could be organized in
> trinities, quaternities, etc. -- or they might be flying around
> in no special pattern.
Of course, but order is not the point. The point is contradiction and
conflict between opposing items. The problem is separation, and that
starts with two.
will...@yahoo.com
>
> What you, (seemingly), and the New Agers present as
> "Gnosticism" simply isn't it.
>
Except, I didn't cite any "New Age" sources. The Vedic Age could hardly
be termed "New Age."
> It is an abortion of gnosticism, just like the filth that
> Yaldaboath created.
>
The term "Gnosticism" is an abortuon of Gnosis, Knowing.
> Simply call whatever you ...
>
Whatever. Gnosticism is a metaphysic, a philosophy. Gnosticism isn't a
"way" of knowing - it's simply a doctrine held by some schismatics.
Gnosis, on the other hand, is a way of knowing the Real.
will...@yahoo.com
>> Mike, you ignorant slut: ...
>>
> "Gnosticism" refers to the ideas, the
> history and the practices of the gnostics, e.g.
>
The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism
GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of
transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although
Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake
to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is
nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious
experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of
theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to,
and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds
that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term
"myth" should not here be taken to mean "stories that are not
true", but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a
different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of
philosophy.
In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what
the Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative
language.
Read more:
Kater Moggin
> Where exactly would multiplicity start? With 3, 4 or ten?
On either the first or second day of Christmas. Up to you.
> I didn't say multiple items have to be ordered dualisticly.
And I didn't say that you said multiple objects have to be
ordered dualistically. I pointed out that multiplicity
doesn't entail duality. Drop a bag of marbles on the floor and
look what happens.
> I just say that duality is the first form of multiplicity.
No, what you wrote was, "It needs duality for multiplicity
to be there, don't you think?" That would make dualism a
prerequisite for multiplicity -- which it ain't, since as I was
saying, you could very easily have multiple things flying
around (picture birds in the sky, or a juggler tossing balls in
the air) without any dualities.
> If, according to you,
> multiplicity creates problems and duality doesn't, you should tell me
> where multiplicity starts and why.
Not what I said. I pointed out the nonsense you presented
as a critique of dualism.
> Of course, but order is not the point.
Order is precisely the point, since you keep on blathering
about duality.
> The point is contradiction and conflict between opposing items.
> The problem is separation, and that starts with two.
One is canonically the lonliest number that you'll ever do.
Granted, scripture says two can be as bad as one ("the
loneliest number since the number one"), but one is nonetheless
in first place.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism ...
Thank you, but I'm already familiar with the gnostic world
view. It's interesting, though, to see that you stopped
quoting just before you got to the specifics, frex the gnostics'
rejection of Creator and Creation, offered through
interpretations of the Book of Genesis reducing Yahweh from the
supreme deity to an inferior demiurge.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> The term "Gnosticism"
The word "gnosticism" refers to the ideas, the history and
the practices of the gnostics, e.g. the Sethians, the
Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites. Central themes
include the division of the Creator of this world from the
true God and a similarly negative view of the Creation, seen as
a prison, exile, or labyrinth.
> Gnosis
"Gnosis" is sometimes a synonym for "gnosticism," but used
in the narrower sense it denotes the spiritual knowledge
claimed by the gnostics, frex that the Creator of this world is
not God.
-- Moggin
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110133955.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Once again, according to the Gnostic sources.
>>
> Can you cite a Gnostic source?
Don't need to. The guy was saying that "Gnosticism" could be understood as different
things. Something you clearly deny below as well. You and I would differ greatly on the
issue of "Gnosis".
Gnosis, on the other hand, has amply references in both Gnostic sources and those who
wrote against them. Clement of Alexandria goes to some pains to refute them on this issue
and their claim to be "Gnostics".
>> What you, (seemingly), and the New Agers present as
>> "Gnosticism" simply isn't it.
>>
> Except, I didn't cite any "New Age" sources. The Vedic Age could hardly
> be termed "New Age."
You really do have some reading issues. I said "What you, (seeming), *and* the New
Agers..". I was posting to Michael Z., and not you. I never claimed you made any reference
to New Age sources.
Vedic sources are irrelevant.
>> It is an abortion of gnosticism, just like the filth that
>> Yaldaboath created.
>>
> The term "Gnosticism" is an abortuon of Gnosis, Knowing.
A truly idiotic statement, almost on a par with "Gnosticism ain't dualistic." Gnosticism
the schools of Valentinians, Sethians, and others are all about Gnosis. Gnosis is the
knowledge of the Real, and that gained through the dualistic schools of Gnosticism. Not
through the aborted attempts at fusing such a label on something that is alien to it.
>> Simply call whatever you ...
>>
> Whatever. Gnosticism is a metaphysic, a philosophy. Gnosticism isn't a
> "way" of knowing - it's simply a doctrine held by some schismatics.
> Gnosis, on the other hand, is a way of knowing the Real.
A way, yes. A way connected with Gnosticism. Pretty simple, really. What has been
presented here is not Gnosticism, and not Gnosis. It is "mysticism"...nothing more and
nothing less. Deal with it.
--
"Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, 2004
"There's no such thing as Gnosticism; dualism is a metaphysical concept and has nothing to
do with gnosis. Gnosis is the direct experience of the Real."
-- Willytex, 2005
Fuzzie Jester
Much more concise than what I fumbled out.
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment."
"When it's a question of money, everybody is of the same religion."
-- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Fuzzie Jester
Always the way. They did the same to some other of Hoeller's works.
Fuzzie Jester
I hate to admit it, brother, but I am hearing whooshing sounds too. After a couple of
days, it is still pretty loud whooshing.
will...@yahoo.com
> I hate to admit it, brother, but I am hearing whooshing
> sounds too.
>
The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism
GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of
Bob Hopeless
"Michael Z." <han...@telda.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.06....@telda.net...
Thank you for telling me your problem with dualism though I'm not quite sure
how it relates to what I said. I have no problem with the idea of unity
amidst diversity. My difficulty is quite a specific one so let me say for
the first time something that I've already said before: there is a logical
difficulty in understanding how a transcendental reality which is described
as sat-chit-ananda - infinite truth, intelligence and bliss - can permeate
through-and-through and be the source and substance of this suffering,
imperfect, miserable world. You see it's not just any old transcendental
reality, but a very specific one: a blissful, perfect one. A mystic may tell
you that he has experienced this blissful transcendence and also experienced
that it is identical to this apparently suffering world and may exude an
atmosphere of great contentment. You may believe that his experience is more
valid than yours and run around trying to convince people on newsgroups
about this wonderful truth. A paranoid person may tell you he knows that
perfect strangers he passes on the street are part of large conspiracy
against him and may exude an atmosphere of great paranoia. You dismiss his
experience as delusional and denounce him as insane. His experience, after
all, is contradicted by obvious facts. Yet the mystic's experience, too, is
contradicted by obvious facts. It would be most reasonable to say the mystic
is delusional and most unreasonable to think the mystic's experience is
profound, ultimate truth; and downright silly to think you are somehow
unworthy of understanding his truth but that you will meditate faithfully
and hope one day to see things the way he does and have his blissful
experience.
Far simpler to find a theory that actually matches the evidence, namely that
the creator of this imperfect, miserable world is not a merciful loving
being at all.
Bob Hopeless
will...@yahoo.com
> Thank you, but I'm already familiar with the gnostic
> world view.
>
here is "myth" - myths don't make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Only
realization can make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Anyone can believe in
a myth or believe in "Gnosticism." A set of metaphysics does not a
Gnostic make, neither was a Gnostic made by myth. Gnostics "know": they
may or may not believe in a demiurge or a Creator God.
But you don't want to admit that the Sethians, the Naasenes, the
Valentinians and the Marcionites may NOT have been Gnostics in the true
sense - there is ample evidence that they were mere believers, not
knowers of the truth. Perhaps they believed in "Gnosticism" and they
left us some texts, but maybe they had no real Knowledge. If they did,
they lost it, and you didn't seem to inherit it; show me.
But it is fair to say that South Asian Gnostics are alive and well in
Mother India, while the Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites
are long dead and gone, long ago overrun, killed, impaled, slaughtered
and destroyed by the radical Islamo Assassins. What is surprising to me
is that you don't seem to be aware of any living Gnostics - what's up
with that, Rex Mundi?
P.S. Don't you have anyone on a.r.m. that can discuss this topic with
some personal experience, or is all of your information derived from
book knowledge? At that you are surely an adept, Kater, however, I was
really looking for some insight into gnosis. How do you get it and how
does it feel?
An excerpt:
Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in
pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis
which means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis).
Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the
rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It
became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century
Christianity, and was noted for three factors which differed from the
two other branches of Christianity:
1. Novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed
from those of other Christian groups.
2. Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of
Gnosticism.
3. Lack of discrimination against women.
A belief that salvation is achieved through knowledge. In the words of
The Gnostic Apostolic Church humanity needs to be awakened and brought
"to a realisation of his true nature. Mankind is moving towards the
Omega Point, the Great day when all must graduate or fall. This day is
also the Day of Judgement in that only those who have entered the Path
of Transfiguration and are being reborn can return to the Treasury of
Light."
Source:
will...@yahoo.com
> Always the way.
>
The dog barks, and the caravan passes by.
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110253375.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Wow...I am profoundly underwhelmed.
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110255765.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Fuzzy wrote:
>> Always the way.
>>
> The dog barks, and the caravan passes by.
>
Not a caravan worth hopping on, pal.
will...@yahoo.com
>>
> Not a caravan worth hopping on, pal.
>
Who would you believe?
A very small group of people, standing on the corner, who said that no
big blue bus drove by.
Or,
Another, very large group of people, standing on the same street
corner, who all said that a very large blue bus just passed by?
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110255660.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Kater wrote:
>> Thank you, but I'm already familiar with the gnostic
>> world view.
>>
> You are welcome, Kater, now follow the bread crumbs. But the key word
> here is "myth" - myths don't make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Only
> realization can make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Anyone can believe in
> a myth or believe in "Gnosticism." A set of metaphysics does not a
> Gnostic make, neither was a Gnostic made by myth. Gnostics "know": they
> may or may not believe in a demiurge or a Creator God.
Realization generally makes someone a mystic. Period. Ever hear of a practicing Muslim who
doesn't believe in Allah? I would think not. What you have just offered is assumption
based on your own preconceived ideas. Even the enemies of the early Gnostics went to some
trouble to try and demonstrate that such a label was "incorrect", (I have already
mentioned "The Stromata").
> But you don't want to admit that the Sethians, the Naasenes, the
> Valentinians and the Marcionites may NOT have been Gnostics in the true
> sense - there is ample evidence that they were mere believers, not
> knowers of the truth. Perhaps they believed in "Gnosticism" and they
> left us some texts, but maybe they had no real Knowledge. If they did,
> they lost it, and you didn't seem to inherit it; show me.
Another very big assumption.Their opponents called them "Gnostics" and saw them as enough
of a threat to have a real go at them. Maybe Buddha was just a mentally unhinged vagrant
sitting under a tree? Not a suggestion I would care to make.
> But it is fair to say that South Asian Gnostics are alive and well in
> Mother India, while the Naasenes, the Valentinians and the Marcionites
> are long dead and gone, long ago overrun, killed, impaled, slaughtered
> and destroyed by the radical Islamo Assassins. What is surprising to me
> is that you don't seem to be aware of any living Gnostics - what's up
> with that, Rex Mundi?
South Asians are not Gnostics. They are Buddhists, Muslims and so on.
> P.S. Don't you have anyone on a.r.m. that can discuss this topic with
> some personal experience, or is all of your information derived from
> book knowledge? At that you are surely an adept, Kater, however, I was
> really looking for some insight into gnosis. How do you get it and how
> does it feel?
How does Nirvana feel like, nong? Your comedy is priceless.
[snipped]
Try reading some real books.
will...@yahoo.com
> there is a logical difficulty in understanding how a
>
You're going to have a very difficult time refuting Immanuel Kant's
Idealism and the Transcendental "thing-in-itself", Bob. First, you're
going to have to prove materialism, not an easy task in itself. Then
you're going to have to delineate the first cause and account for error
in sense knowledge, an almost impossible task.
> can permeate through-and-through and be the source
> and substance of this suffering, imperfect, miserable world.
>
Nobody said that the Transcendent was the cause or the source of
anything. The Transcendent is the Noumenon - it has nothing to do with
the phenonenon - they are entirely separate.
> You see it's not just any old transcendental reality, but
> a very specific one: a blissful, perfect one.
>
There's only one Reality, Bob.
> A mystic
>
Which one?
> may tell you that he has experienced this
> blissful transcendence and also experienced that it
> is identical to this apparently suffering world and may
> exude an atmosphere of great contentment.
>
Which mystic said that the Transcendent was "identical to this
suffering world"? Gotama? I don't think so. Shankara? Kant? Who?
Miester Eckhart?
<snip>
> Far simpler to find a theory that actually matches the
> evidence, namely that the creator of this imperfect,
> miserable world is not a merciful loving being at all.
>
Msybe so, but you've just described docetism, Bob, not the Transcendent
"thing-in-itself" of Idealism. You're hopeless as a logician. You have
not even established a valid means of knowledge if all you can come up
with is a theory of material causation.
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110259169.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
An argument by numbers is inherently flawed. Even Christ said few will ever find the way,
(his analogy was a road, as you probably well know).
Being a Gnostic is where I have found answers and something that I was looking for, but
didn't know I was looking for it. If there are only a few Gnostics around, then that is
par for the course. As one author wrote: it is a "lonely and difficult path". Such is life
in this prison. And such is my hope.
What about you? Would you believe the big group or the small?
--
Fuzzie Jester
--------------------
"Hell is other people."
"Man is a useless passion. "
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)
will...@yahoo.com
>
Yeah, Fuzzy, nobody can hold a candle to all your insightful comments!
ROTFL!!!
The 1988 edition of The Nag Hammadi Library contains a lengthy
afterword entitled "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism." Its author,
Richard Smith, reviews the numerous developments in Western culture
which appear to be related to Gnosticism.
Work cited:
Richard Smith, "The Modern Relevance of Gnosticism," in James M.
Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, third edition (San Francisco,
Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 532-49.
What Is a Gnostic?
by Stephan A. Hoeller
Fuzzie Jester
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110260484.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Wow...I am profoundly underwhelmed.
>>
> Yeah, Fuzzy, nobody can hold a candle to all your insightful comments!
>
> ROTFL!!!
>
Thanks. I am really in a league on my own. Still, I have no idea what the original
whooshing sound is.
Kater Moggin
> The Gnostic World View: A Brief Summary of Gnosticism
Interesting that Willy repeatedly chops off the summary he
quotes at exactly same place: just before it starts going
into specifics about gnosis, for example the gnostics'
rejection of Creator and Creation, given in readings of Genesis
reducing Yahweh from supreme deity to crappy demiurge, with
the world he created described as a prison, exile, or labyrinth.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> myths don't make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Only
> realization can make a man or a woman a Gnostic. Anyone can believe in
> a myth or believe in "Gnosticism." A set of metaphysics does not a
> Gnostic make, neither was a Gnostic made by myth, Gnostics "know": they
> may or may not believe in a demiurge or a Creator God.
A gnostic is "a believer in gnosticism" (American Heritage
Dictionary) or "an adherent of gnosticism" (that one comes
from Merriam-Webster). The word "gnosticism," in turn, denotes:
The thought and practice especially of various
cults of late pre-Christian and early
Christian centuries distinguished by the
conviction that matter is evil and that
emancipation comes through gnosis
(Merriam-Webster)
The doctrines of certain pre-Christian
pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that
valued the revealed knowledge of God and
of the origin and end of the human race as a
means to attain redemption for the spiritual
element in humans and that distinguished the
Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being.
(American Heritage)
To repeat: gnosis is linked to the gnostics, gnostics are
believers in gnosticism, and gnosticism refers to certain
ancient schools, Christian and otherwise, that divided God from
the Creator of this world.
I think that the same terms can be applied by extension to
others -- frex the Cathars and Bogomils -- who share the
ancient gnostics' basic point of view, but I realize I'm taking
a liberal approach.
Incidentally, the bit about pre-Christian gnostic sects is
out-of-date. That was once a popular theory, but the
confirming evidence never turned up, so we're left with an open
question.
> But you don't want to admit that the Sethians, the Naasenes, the
> Valentinians and the Marcionites may NOT have been Gnostics in the true
> sense -
The Sethians, Valentinians, Marcionites, etc. were clearly
gnostics in the true sense, since they're the ones who the
word "gnostic" denotes. Proto-orthodox Christians disputed the
label in antiquity, but it stuck anyhow.
> - there is ample evidence that they were mere believers, not
> knowers of the truth.
No evidence in Willy's post, and "gnostic" isn't a generic
term for "knowers of the truth." It refers in specific to
"an adherent of gnosticism" (Merriam-Webster) or "a believer in
gnosticism" (American Heritage).
> An excerpt:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm
I see that Willy has once again stopped quoting before his
own source contradicted him, i.e., before it explained the
gnostics divided the true God, God the Father, from "an
inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge...viewed by
Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in
compassion and prone to genocide." Same thing I've been saying
and Willy keeps trying to ignore.
-- Moggin
Fuzzie Jester
The phrase "pushing shit uphill" springs to mind. Not eloquent, but fitting on so many
different levels.
Fuzzie Jester
yep....
Michael Z.
> The doctrines of certain pre-Christian
> pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects
In this case you cannot be a Gnostic, Kater
will...@yahoo.com
> Not eloquent, but fitting on so many different levels.
>
downstream.
Michael Z.
> I have no problem with the idea of unity
> amidst diversity. My difficulty is quite a specific one so let me say for
> the first time something that I've already said before: there is a logical
> difficulty in understanding how a transcendental reality which is described
> as sat-chit-ananda - infinite truth, intelligence and bliss - can permeate
> through-and-through and be the source and substance of this suffering,
> imperfect, miserable world. You see it's not just any old transcendental
> reality, but a very specific one: a blissful, perfect one.
I understand what you are saying: My point would be that the 'blissfull'
nature of transcendence is less essential than the existence part of it
- Sat. Ananada always only relates to experience. Thats surely important,
but not as important as existence itself. Therefore, in my argument, I
first and foremost take recourse to the transcendental nature of
existence. If this can be experienced, it will be a blissfull experience,
but the *if* is a condition
> A mystic may tell
> you that he has experienced this blissful transcendence and also experienced
> that it is identical to this apparently suffering world and may exude an
> atmosphere of great contentment. You may believe that his experience is more
> valid than yours and run around trying to convince people on newsgroups
> about this wonderful truth.
Why not try to get this experience yourself first? Why just believe him?
> A paranoid person may tell you he knows that
> perfect strangers he passes on the street are part of large conspiracy
> against him and may exude an atmosphere of great paranoia. You dismiss his
> experience as delusional and denounce him as insane. His experience, after
> all, is contradicted by obvious facts.
His 'experience' is more about concrete objective things. The mytsics
experience are about truth which are less *objective*. Therefore they are
of a different order.
> Yet the mystic's experience, too, is
> contradicted by obvious facts.
Not by facts, but by experience.
> It would be most reasonable to say the mystic
> is delusional and most unreasonable to think the mystic's experience is
> profound, ultimate truth;
Sure, from the experience of the suffering this would be true. What makes
the experience of the mystic different is its nature: Its not just an
experience of being blissed out or spaced out,with some kind of theory
attached to it, but its the *recognition* of ones true and ultimate
nature which makes up the experience. That may not translate well for
everybody; but it *can* translate for anyone. There is the potential in
this experience, for anybody to recognize the same truth. Otherwise it
would indeed be just another beliefsystem, and as such just as delusional
as anything else.
> and downright silly to think you are somehow
> unworthy of understanding his truth
Why should I think to be unworthy?
> but that you will meditate faithfully
> and hope one day to see things the way he does and have his blissful
> experience.
Why one day, and not now?
> Far simpler to find a theory that actually matches the evidence, namely that
> the creator of this imperfect, miserable world is not a merciful loving
> being at all.
It may indeed be simpler, and I have nothing against people believing
this. To the contrary, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness and honesty to
question generally accepted cultural positions. But a mere theory will not
make you more happy, it can explain your (and other's) unhappiness. If
this explanation is giving you some kind of relief, fine, really. But how
much better it would be indeed to have total relief. But to just believe
in such 'total relief' would be out of place. It has to be an experience,
a direct recognition.
I want to still say something about the 'creator', the demiurg.To believe
that something is wrong with creation as it is,and that the reason lies in
its very foundation, is indeed a compelling idea. But question yourself,
where this creator comes from. According to the gnostics, he has been
created by Sophia, who again was split in a higher half, and a lower half.
Sophia in her higher half has developed out of the female side of the good
God, the Father, the Deep. Actually, before the demiurg comes into being,
there is a whole series of emanations descending from the True God, which
ultimately, as a sort of an accident lead to the demiurg and the physical
creation as such. As such, the demiurg is only a delegate, not the true
creator, as there is already a creation going on prior to him. So, the
whole problem of creation, is only postponed to a certain point. It has
been delegated, but not solved.
The same is true - in another way - with the term Maya in Advaita.The
whole problem of suffering is put on the shoulders of Maya, ignorance,
delusion. Maya is still sort of Brahman, but its a veiling, a clouding of
its nature.
Philosophically speaking the problem is just being shifted around, it is
just being delegated, but not really solved. Philosophy cannot ultimately
answer these questions. It can only serve as focal points for a path, as
an explanatory model for experiences, but it cannot substitute them.
Michael Z.
> I see that Willy has once again stopped quoting before his
> own source contradicted him, i.e., before it explained the
> gnostics divided the true God, God the Father, from "an
> inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge...viewed by
> Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in
> compassion and prone to genocide."
Kater, you are giving again onesided, and therefore wrong information.
Valentinians, the most influencial Gnostic school did not view the
*creator* as *fundamentally evil* See:
"Valentinians insisted that while the Demiurge may be a bit foolish, he
certainly could not be considered evil."
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Demiurge.htm
Michael Z.
> Am Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:44:06 -0800 schrieb Bob Hopeless:
>> Far simpler to find a theory that actually matches the evidence, namely
>> that the creator of this imperfect, miserable world is not a merciful
>> loving being at all.
Btw, this sentence of yours, Bob, would be a very bad representation of
gnosticism.
Would you also be ready, to accept the other beliefs of gnosticism, such
as:
1.) There is an immortal soul within man. This soul has been given by the
True God.
2.) There is a Messiah, such as Jesus or Seth, who will redeem you from
your involvement in matter, sent by the True God to free the soul from its
earthly prison.
Your identification of Gnosis with an evil creator god, as a sort
of relief to your suffering, is the result of Katers one-sided
definitions, and is a distortion of true Gnosis. Therefore my answer which
I gave down, is not an appropriate answer to true Gnosis, but only its
misunderstood, onesided representation.
Kater Moggin
> > Willy has once again stopped quoting before his
> > own source contradicted him, i.e., before it explained the
> > gnostics divided the true God, God the Father, from "an
> > inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge...viewed by
> > Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in
> > compassion and prone to genocide." Same thing I've been saying
> > and Willy keeps trying to ignore
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> Kater, you are giving again onesided, and therefore wrong information.
Mike, you're full of crap again. I'm pointing out Willy's
habit of breaking off his quotes before the web-pages he's
cut-and-pasting from contradict him, for instance by explaining
that the gnostics distinguished the true God from "an
inferior Creator-God also known as the Demiurge...viewed by
Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in
compassion and prone to genocide." An example of what Willy is
ignoring in his own info.
> Valentinians, the most influencial Gnostic school did not view the
> *creator* as *fundamentally evil* See:
I see you're still pontificating about gnosticism even tho
you know next to nothing about the topic. Going by the
evidence in the historical sources, the Valentinians most often
reduced the Creator of this world from God supreme to an
arrogant, ignorant, disgusting and sometimes even evil demiurge.
> "Valentinians insisted that while the Demiurge may be a bit foolish, he
> certainly could not be considered evil."
False. The demiurge is more than "a bit foolish" from the
Valentinian perspective. He's very plainly described as
arrogant, ignorant, disgusting, and yes, even evil: the Gospel
of Truth says he "set about with a creation, preparing with
power and beauty the substitute for the truth," which makes him
a liar, and he's shown "preparing works and oblivions and
terrors, in order that by means of these it might entice
those of the middle and capture them." Clearly he's not merely
a little foolish there: he's a bastard.
See what happens when you rely on random web-pages? Makes
you look even more idiotic.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> >> Far simpler to find a theory that actually matches the evidence, namely
> >> that the creator of this imperfect, miserable world is not a merciful
> >> loving being at all.
Michael Z. <han...@telda.net>:
> Btw, this sentence of yours, Bob, would be a very bad representation of
> gnosticism.
Bob didn't say he was representing gnosticism. He said he
was offering a theory matching the evidence by positing a
non-merciful, non-loving Creator to go along with the miserable
and imperfect world we have here.
But now that you mention it, Bob's theory fits in with the
gnostic perspective very well, since the gnostics see the
Creator of this world as a highly inferior demiurge, in keeping
with his Creation.
-- Moggin