Gospel of Thomas Saying 29
gnostic ken
29 Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that
is a
marvel, but if spirit
came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.
Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this
poverty."
..............................
29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit,
it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the
body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this
great wealth has made its home in this poverty."
...............................
29.)
If the flesh
came into being for the sake
of the spirit,that is
a mystery. But if
the spirit came into being
for the sake of the body,
That is a wondrous miracle.
How did such great wealth
make its home, i wonder,
in such poverty?
..................................
29. Y'shua says: If the flesh has come into being because of
spirit,
it is
a marvel--yet if
spirit because of the body, it would be a marvel among marvels. But I
marvel at this, how
this great wealth has inhabited this poverty.
..................................
(29) Jesus says:
(1) "If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a
wonder.
(2) But if the spirit (came into being) because of the body, it is a
wonder
of wonders.
(3) Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has taken up residence in
this
poverty."
....................................
29
Independence of spirit and body
JESUS said, "It is amazing if it was for the spirit that flesh came
into
existence. And it is amazing indeed if spirit (came into existence)
for
the sake of the body. But as for me, I am amazed at how this great
wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."
gnostic ken
Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:02 pm, Scott said:
(a)
"If you think our bodies were made because
of our spirit needed an earthly home, you
know one of the great mysteries. You lived
before you came to this earth. That is a mystery
to most.
(b)
"But, even greater, if you realize that we
-- our inner spiritual self has ALWAYS
existed to ultimately come into and possess
our body, then you have yet another wonderous
miracle.
(c)
"Why do we think our Higher Self (our Spirit)
is in the supposed "Poverty" of this Earthly Realm?"
Scott Vanatter
Oct
06, 2006 00:58 PDT, slvan-@... said:
The inner gives life to the outer.
Oct 06, 2006 04:29 PDT, Gnostic Tom said:
The common thought is that the mind is a product
of the body, that thoughts are generated by the
brain. The Gnostic thought is that the body is
a product of the mind, that we build up this field
of perceptions and identify with the material being
animated by our presence. If it is a laugh to
the common thought folks that the body is all in
the mind, it is a greater laugh to the Gnostic that
the mind could possibly come from brain activity
in the body.
The realization expressed here is that we are
minds having been trapped in the poverty of
material experience, descended into this fate
that is not our true home and nature.
I have come to think of the brain as not being
a processor as much as it is a modem connecting
the physical body to the spiritual mind (nous).
=====================================
Thomas Ragland (Gnostic Tom)
"So little time, so much to unlearn."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dharma_Gnosis/
=====================================
Fri
Mar 14, 2008 11:21 am, Steve said:
Of course scholars have interpreted this logia in various
ways. However, I personally think that this logia is quite to the
point for our times. IMO, "Jesus" is here saying that, although it
is amazing that the material body (and the material world in general)
came into being because of spirit, it is simply incredible to suppose
that spirit came into being because of the physical body. IMO,
"spirit" is simply a word for "consciousness". The general
belief
nowadays is to regard consciousness as being "caused" by bio-chemical
processes in the physical brain. I would agree that many of the
functions of the ego-persona are mediated, in a correlated way,
through brain processes. However, I don't equate consciousness
in itself with the phenomenal aspects of the ego-persona. In
philosophical jargon, the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness
studies is the question of "qualia". Qualia refers to the irrefutable
fact of subjective awareness. Neuroscientists, in general, desperately
avoid even addressing how bio-chemical secretions and electrical
connections between neurons could possibly give rise to subjective,
1st-person awareness. Such researchers inevitably focus instead on
the admittedly phenomenal lower aspects of mind that we associate
with personality and perception. The esteemed theorist of the
philsophy of science Karl Popper refers to those scientists who
admit that they have absolutely no idea how material processes
could ever cause subjective awareness but who insist that "someday"
they will be able to explain it as being what he calls "promissory
materialists". A good example of a promissory materialist who at least
is honest enough to actually admit there is a problem is John Searle.
I recommend his book The Mystery of Consciousness as an overview of
how various prommisory materialists have tried (in vain) to resolve
the hard problem of qualia. His book also provides a devastating
critique of the reductionist approach of Daniel Dennett, who is very
popular today among the Richard Dawkins Crowd. I also recommend the
very excellent book by Amit Goswami entitled The Self-Aware Universe
for a critique of these people from the view-point of Monistic
Idealism, which I personally endorse. Going back to the logia under
discussion, I would assert that the "poverty" mentioned refers to
the sad poverty of living in a world-view that believes that our
conscious being just happened to emerge as a sort of peculiar
by-product of mindless material processes in a mindless material
universe.
IMO,
Steve
Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:23 pm, "letterpi" said:
I personally like reflexive monism as a basis for my worldview.
I view both the physical and mental/spiritual to be an aspect or
perceived by my "perceptive consciousness". I think that when
I perceive the world thru my outer senses and when I perceive
my inner self that in each case I am perceiving a small but
different aspect of the world. I think that the physical and
mental/spiritual world coexist and are integral aspects of the
same world but our perception of the 2 are so different that
describing one in terms of the other or saying that one
"emerges" from the other is misleading and assumes that one
is more fundamental than the other.
In other words my mind is not my perceptive
consciousness as I perceive both the physical and the mental
and they are both equally valid perceptions. The world is not
all mind and the world is not all phyaical with one "emerging"
from the other but rather the 2 are equally valid perceptions
with no need to describe one of them in terms of the other.
In the spiritual domain it can be quite misleading when metaphors
talking about the physical but about the mind/spirit are then
taken to be physical events and then applied to the physical
"world". Even though literalist people do think mythos to
be physical events, they do usually subconsiously know that
mythos is a special reality as they usually do not act upon
mythos as if it is a physical reality.
This is how I describe my world as we can only describe
our world because the ultimate truth is that there is no
utlimate truth which negated my ultimate truth. We use
a given or hitching post as a basis for "thinking" and
point of reference is "perceptive consciousness" which
perceives both the inner and outer world.
Warmly, Bob
Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:01 pm, Penn said:
I see it a lil differently. More as a ref to the wonderment that our minds
(spirits) get trapped into materialistic thinking re their own nature
MP
p3nn
Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:13 pm, Damaeus said:
One pervasive thought in my line of thinking is that perhaps the goal
is to see the inner and outer worlds as one. I've often thought that
when we dream, we are actually more awake than when we're up and
around during the day. I know I've had a few dreams that were so
vivid that I felt 10 times as alive as I do now, writing this message.
Maybe dreams are also kind of like exercises in perceptual stability.
Damaeus
Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:05 am, Soren said:
In this saying, I think, one can see the importance of the translators
congenialitity with the spiritual level of the text he is interpreting. In my
view the translation, which begins: "If the flesh came into being for the
sake
of the spirit, that is a mystery.." is the one that best mediate both the
spiritual content of the saying and the ironic tone carrying the message.
The hidden Christ wonders how such a great wealth made its home in such a
poverty.
Sometimes I wonder at this too. I feel very strongly that opposite forces
struggle within me for supprimacy. Now because of the spiritual light and the
inner strenghts I experience when the spirit fills my heart and soul up, I
clearly see who is the strongest in the contest going on within me though it
still is with the spirit like it is said in one of the gnostic scriptures of
the
Nag Hammadi Library it is sometimes present in the soul, but then it vanish
again due to influences caused from the passions of the body, but when it is
there, it always shows who is the strongest.
Soren
Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:56 am, Rosalie said:
I think it is necessary that
there is this struggle of opposites because The True Self is living in a
physical
body which has it's own agenda--to stay physically alive. And that is no
small problem in our world, to stay physically alive. It takes a lot of
effort. Then there is The True Self not wanting to lose track of itself. No
wonder there is this kind of struggle. IMO
Rosalie
Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:38 pm, Damaeus answered Rosalie,
I believe this is what I experience sometimes as a struggle to reach
higher ground. It's like no matter what I do, I can go around and
around and never get anywhere. Come to find out, I think it's
actually the brain fighting the spirit. The spirit-you has its way of
doing things, but the brain demands that things happen in another way.
The brain has to calm down and let the spirit work its magic in its
own tantalizing and sensual ways. Rewards do come, but there's some
foreplay involved.
I posted a message last night, detailing my frustration about having
had some fantastic experiences last week, but not being able to repeat
them since then. I then decided that it was Me vs. God, basically. I
was trying to force myself to blossom before it was time, so I decided
to try just letting go. I decided to stop trying, stop doing, and
stop putting any effort into it. Well, I went back to lie down in
bed. I stopped trying. I just relaxed and opened myself up to
whatever was going to happen to me...and I had another experience. It
wasn't as grand as the head-above-the-clouds that left me feeling I
could ascend at that very moment, but it was a sense of inner,
timeless calm, and a feeling of lightness in my body. It was great,
and it was far more than I was able to achieve by putting effort into
it.
So I think it is just about letting go, but not just lying there like
a piece of meat waiting impatiently for something to happen. It seems
to be about just trying not to think, but just lying still and
perceiving what is happening without judgments, no matter what weird
thoughts pop into your mind. Judgments and saying, "eww, I don't want
to think about that...." just delays the experience that much more.
There are no evil thoughts, I don't believe. I think they're thoughts
and mental images that are needed to bring something into balance in
our spirit.
IMHO,
Damaeus
Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:08 am, evwheeler@... answered Damaeus,
For me my friend when I come to the end of myself things happen.
ed
Mon
Sep 27, 2010 10:34 am, I said:
Poverty? Is the idea that either came into being because of the other poverty?
The marvel is that anything of value can come from such wrong starting points?
Yet much wealth, many thoughts of value, do come to those who start with
either?
Ken
Thu
Sep 16, 2010 12:46 pm, Gnostic Tom said:
how
about translating / paraphrasing it this way:
if physical beings were created by God,
then we have to be in awe of God
but if God was created by physical beings
then God should be in awe of us
the real awe inspiring thought is
how much of infinity has been
entrusted to our mundane minds.
Tom
Sun
Sep 19, 2010 12:36 pm, Sam said:
Omnipresence*
eonian; though
expressions-of-omni* come and go.
'Tis this, thru intuit, some folk gnow.
itso,
philo
Sun
Sep 19, 2010 7:03 pm, Oregon George Said:
> 29
> Independence of spirit and body
> JESUS said, "It is amazing if it was for the spirit that
flesh came
> into
> existence. And it is amazing indeed if spirit (came into
existence)
> for
> the sake of the body. But as for me, I am amazed at how this
great
> wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."
I prefer this translation by Layton because it uses the words
"amazing" and
"amazed" instead of the more common "wonder"
and "marvel" for the Coptic word in
question. All are apparently quite acceptable from the
translators' point of
view, but the latter words suggest a positive approval of that
which is
described. We have the English words "wonderful" and
"marvelous" that suggest
the same. The word "amazing", however, is neutral and I
don't think that in the
context of this saying, Jesus meant to simply say that this or
that was
marvelous or even more or less marvelous. The word, amazing,
however, suggests
bewilderment, and a need to examine the subject more deeply.
Three possible realities are presented and commented on:
A. It was for the spirit that flesh came into existence. Amazing,
Jesus
says.
B. Spirit came into existence for the sake of the body. Amazing
indeed (or
amazement beyond mere amazement), Jesus says.
C. This great wealth (spirit) has come to dwell in this poverty
(flesh). For
me, this too is amazing, Jesus says.
Can we conceive of the divine (spirit) without accepting its
principal
characteristic of perfection? And can we admit that the flesh (the
body) is
far less than perfect, inclined as it is to be born in pain, to
experience
separation its entire life and to finally age and die? The first
statement (A)
basically says that from perfection came imperfection. Jesus finds
this an
amazing proposition. I, too, find it amazing. It doesn't seem
likely, does it,
that perfection would somehow produce imperfection. Yet this is
the customary
Judeo/Christian belief, isn't it?
The second statement (B) states the seeming opposite: that from
imperfection
came perfection. Jesus is more than amazed at this proposition.
This would
seem to deny the very existence of spirit as a force in creation.
It would seem
to arise from a belief that man created God, preserved perhaps on
a subconscious
level to ensure the survival of the ego.
So here we have two fundamental questions, basically reduced to
this: Did God
create flesh or did flesh create God? Surprisingly perhaps, Jesus
stops short
of endorsing either proposition. He only states for certain in the
third
statement (C) that he sees spirit as a great wealth and flesh as
poverty. One
is reminded of another saying of Jesus (GTh 56) where he compares
the world to a
corpse. The equation of spirit to wealth and flesh to poverty
seems to
strengthen his objection to statement A which might be restated
as: How can
wealth be the source of poverty? Jesus doesn't directly answer
this question or
offer an alternative. But what he does state in statement C seems
to open the
door to a possible alternative. He says that he is amazed (again)
that this
great wealth came to dwell in this poverty. He appears to question
this
proposal, as he did the first two. How can wealth or perfection
come to dwell
in or coexist with poverty? Who's will is this that made this so?
How can what
is vibrantly alive come to make its home in what is dead or devoid
of life? He
seems to be suggesting that it can't.
This is where a possible door is opened to an alternative
proposition. He
doesn't state it explicitly, but it follows from his doubt. If
spirit never
came to dwell with poverty, where is it? The obvious answer is
that it never
left its home in God. And If it never left its home in God, then
the separation
never happened, except as an illusion or as a dream in the mind of
man. Man was
created as spirit in God's image and what God gives he gives
forever. Man
apparently fell asleep and dreamed a dream of separation. He fell
into a
drunken stupor, perhaps, as the previous saying says (GTh 28). For
now, he's in
a cloud of confusion and dismay. But when he shakes off his wine
of guilt and
sin, he'll wake up and remember that he never left his home in
God.
The above conclusion describes a way of looking at reality that
isn't commonly
ascribed to Jesus. There seems to be some momentum in this
direction, though,
and it seems to clarify many of the more obscure sayings in
Thomas. It's called
Nondualism or sometimes Acosmic Monism. It more or less says that
everything
real must reside within the mind of God. Gods extends Himself
through creating.
Spirit creates spirit. However, anything that seems to contradict
God's loving
will for his creation is illusion. Therefore, the world of
separation, death,
guilt, sin, bodies or even space and time are impossible and don't
exist, except
as illusions within the mind (not a material brain) of man. Man
sleeps and
dreams that he has usurped his father's throne. But he hasn't, and
deep under
the clouds of confusion in his fevered and befuddled mind, he
knows it.
Nondualism, however, is a broad philosophy and it seems to
encompass a range of
ideas. It remains for us to work out the precise shape and texture
of this
Nondualism in the Gospel of Thomas.
Sorry for the wordiness.:-)
George
Corvallis, OR
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:28 pm , Jerry said:
Though there is no way to depict in words
completely what first came to
me when I fell upon t/This which answers for everything that is,
one of
my favorite terms is the word used in translation in saying number
two,
often interpreted as astonished or astounded, as in Lambdin. [
hold on,
I will have to see if it is the same Coptic word (as found in Mike
Grondin's Interlinear site http://gospel-thomas.net/splith.htm ) as the
word amazement and wonder in saying number two of other
translations ...
yes, it appears so. Whoa! In saying 29, the same root word is used
four
times in the same sentence ... -wonder, -wonder as -wonder, and
-amazement, three times with a different prefix, and to top it
off, in
saying 2, half the sentence is missing preceding the use of the
word!)
Yes , there is a place for such scholarly information at times.]
When this occurred in my mid twenties, I walked for weeks as a
wide
eyed-child, utterly astounded at anything and everything that
appeared
before me in this new light that had suddenly dawned. The most
astounding thing about it was not just on some etheric or docetic
level
of being, but quite literally e v e r y t h i n g/ E V E R Y T H I
N G,
all one and the same, including this world of 'objects', the
'corpse' or
body. The speaker in my radio as one astounding example. Or a
variety of
utterly astounding synchronicities, large or small, there was no
difference. There was no split. period, and such judgments simply
were
not made nor required.
If this seems only a theoretical or philisophical judgment, then
imagine
what it might be like to have literal miracles occur with every
sound
and sight one sees and hears with what use to be considered bodily
ears
and eyes. Now there are ears and a single eye in the 'place' of
the
'old'. I knew nothing at all about any of this until this finding
occured. It indeed was a wonder of wonders, total amazement
through and
through. It still is though as this becomes the heaven world one
dwells
in, the adjustments or transformations required turn it into a
being no
one else could understand or have an inkling 'about' without
themselves
'being there'. This was not to be confused with pantheism or any
other
'is im' or just a new philosophy. I am speaking totally astounding
is
every way, remember. Not just Omnipresent, but also Omnipotent and
Omniscient!. All one and the same.
So when Jesus, or Yeshua makes these remarks I think he has this
inexpressible response in mind and sight. In fact no theorizing or
speculation will or could answer the questions posed once outside
the
only answer and it is not like him to expound in either/or
statements
that miss the whole truth. He is a master at 'portraying both
poles at
once, leaving that and everything else between open to personal
discovery of 'that/this' which he sees/is, each one in and for
themselves.
jerry b
Northern Neck, Virginia
7 May 11, Clive said:
Perhaps its ok to read it as saying -
Its a wonder how this visible world and all its concerns has come
into existence from the Spiritual.
And Its a wonder of wonders if because of our visible world and
our concerns that we again enter the Spiritual.
Saying 3, - - -". But if you will not know yourselves, you
dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
Perhaps he's finishing saying 29 by saying that he's amazed how
our soul has fallen so low that its reached a state of complete forgetfulness.
8 May 11, I said:
Today I look at it and it says this to me:
Spirit which knows all things goes into material form where
knowledge is extremely limited.
IMO it is necessary for us to not be aware of universal knowledge
in out everyday life. If we were aware of absolutely everything our human brain
would overload and we wouldn't be able to function as human animals.
Ken
8 May 11, Clive said:
Yet we seek universal knowledge. I think I'd be willing to give up
functioning as a human animal if I could be one with the ultimate truth.
Its my opinion that the closest we can get to universal knowledge
whilst still functioning at the animal level is to reach a state of loving our
neighbour as our self. I know I'm like a dog with a bone but its this goal
which drives me forward and I put it before my desire for universal knowledge.
For me the quest for universal knowledge is just an umbrella under
which I can meet my neighbours and form bonds.
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
I personally like reflexive monism as a basis for my worldview. I view both the physical and mental/spiritual to be an aspect or perceived by my "perceptive consciousness". I think that when I perceive the world thru my outer senses and when I perceive my inner self that in each case I am perceiving a small but different aspect of the world. I think that the physical and mental/spiritual world coexist and are integral aspects of the same world but our perception of the 2 are so different that describing one in terms of the other or saying that one "emerges" from the other is misleading and assumes that one is more fundamental than the other.
This is how I describe my world as we can only describe our world because the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth which negated my ultimate truth. We use a given or hitching post as a basis for "thinking" and point of reference is "perceptive consciousness" which perceives both the inner and outer world.
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
Damaeus
gnostic ken
Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:05 am, Soren said:
Soren
gnostic ken
Rosalie
gnostic ken
I believe this is what I experience sometimes as a struggle to reach higher ground. It's like no matter what I do, I can go around and around and never get anywhere. Come to find out, I think it's actually the brain fighting the spirit. The spirit-you has its way of
doing things, but the brain demands that things happen in another way. The brain has to calm down and let the spirit work its magic in its own tantalizing and sensual ways. Rewards do come, but there's some foreplay involved.
gnostic ken
Damaeus
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:03 pm, Oregon George Said:
> 29
> Independence of spirit and body
> JESUS said, "It is amazing if it was for the spirit that flesh came into existence. And it is amazing indeed if spirit (came into existence) for the sake of the > > body. But as for me, I am amazed at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty."
I prefer this translation by Layton because it uses the words
"amazing" and "amazed" instead of the more common "wonder"
and "marvel" for the Coptic word in question. All are apparently quite acceptable from the
translators' point of view, but the latter words suggest a positive approval of that
which is described. We have the English words "wonderful" and
"marvelous" that suggest the same. The word "amazing", however, is neutral and I
don't think that in the context of this saying, Jesus meant to simply say that this or
that was marvelous or even more or less marvelous. The word, amazing,
however, suggests bewilderment, and a need to examine the subject more deeply.
Three possible realities are presented and commented on:
A. It was for the spirit that flesh came into existence. Amazing,
Jesus says.
B. Spirit came into existence for the sake of the body. Amazing
indeed (or amazement beyond mere amazement), Jesus says.
C. This great wealth (spirit) has come to dwell in this poverty (flesh).
For me, this too is amazing, Jesus says.
Can we conceive of the divine (spirit) without accepting its
principal characteristic of perfection? And can we admit that the flesh (the
body) is far less than perfect, inclined as it is to be born in pain, to
experience separation its entire life and to finally age and die? The first
statement (A) basically says that from perfection came imperfection. Jesus finds
this an amazing proposition. I, too, find it amazing. It doesn't seem
likely, does it, that perfection would somehow produce imperfection. Yet this is
the customary Judeo/Christian belief, isn't it?
The second statement (B) states the seeming opposite: that from
imperfection came perfection. Jesus is more than amazed at this proposition.
This would seem to deny the very existence of spirit as a force in creation.
It would seem to arise from a belief that man created God, preserved perhaps on
a subconscious level to ensure the survival of the ego.
So here we have two fundamental questions, basically reduced to
this: Did God create flesh or did flesh create God? Surprisingly perhaps, Jesus
stops short of endorsing either proposition. He only states for certain in the
third statement (C) that he sees spirit as a great wealth and flesh as
poverty. One is reminded of another saying of Jesus (GTh 56) where he compares
the world to a corpse. The equation of spirit to wealth and flesh to poverty
seems to strengthen his objection to statement A which might be restated
as: How can wealth be the source of poverty? Jesus doesn't directly answer
this question or offer an alternative. But what he does state in statement C seems
to open the door to a possible alternative. He says that he is amazed (again)
that this great wealth came to dwell in this poverty. He appears to question
this proposal, as he did the first two. How can wealth or perfection
come to dwell in or coexist with poverty? Who's will is this that made this so?
How can what is vibrantly alive come to make its home in what is dead or devoid
of life? He seems to be suggesting that it can't.
This is where a possible door is opened to an alternative
proposition. He doesn't state it explicitly, but it follows from his doubt. If
spirit never came to dwell with poverty, where is it? The obvious answer is that
it never left its home in God. And If it never left its home in God, then
the separation never happened, except as an illusion or as a dream in the mind of
man. Man was created as spirit in God's image and what God gives he gives
forever. Man apparently fell asleep and dreamed a dream of separation. He fell
into a drunken stupor, perhaps, as the previous saying says (GTh 28). For
now, he's in a cloud of confusion and dismay. But when he shakes off his wine
of guilt and sin, he'll wake up and remember that he never left his home in
God.
The above conclusion describes a way of looking at reality that
isn't commonly ascribed to Jesus. There seems to be some momentum in this
direction, though,
and it seems to clarify many of the more obscure sayings in Thomas.
It's called Nondualism or sometimes Acosmic Monism. It more or less says that everything real must reside within the mind of God. Gods extends Himself
through creating. Spirit creates spirit. However, anything that seems to contradict
God's loving will for his creation is illusion. Therefore, the world of
separation, death, guilt, sin, bodies or even space and time are impossible and don't
exist, except as illusions within the mind (not a material brain) of man. Man
sleeps and dreams that he has usurped his father's throne. But he hasn't, and
deep under the clouds of confusion in his fevered and befuddled mind, he
knows it. Nondualism, however, is a broad philosophy and it seems to
encompass a range of ideas. It remains for us to work out the precise shape and texture
of this Nondualism in the Gospel of Thomas.
George
Corvallis, OR
gnostic ken
gnostic ken
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:28 pm , Jerry said:
Though there is no way to depict in words completely what first came to me when I fell upon t/This which answers for everything that is, one of my favorite terms is the word used in translation in saying number two, often interpreted as astonished or astounded, as in Lambdin. [ hold on, I will have to see if it is the same Coptic word (as found in Mike Grondin's Interlinear site http://gospel-thomas.net/splith.htm ) as the word amazement and wonder in saying number two of other translations ...yes, it appears so. Whoa! In saying 29, the same root word is used four times in the same sentence ... -wonder, -wonder as -wonder, and -amazement, three times with a different prefix, and to top it off, in saying 2, half the sentence is missing preceding the use of the word!) Yes , there is a place for such scholarly information at times.] When this occurred in my mid twenties, I walked for weeks as a wide eyed-child, utterly astounded at anything and everything that appeared before me in this new light that had suddenly dawned. The most astounding thing about it was not just on some etheric or docetic level of being, but quite literally e v e r y t h i n g/ E V E R Y T H I N G, all one and the same, including this world of 'objects', the 'corpse' or body. The speaker in my radio as one astounding example. Or a variety of utterly astounding synchronicities, large or small, there was no difference. There was no split. period, and such judgments simply were not made nor required.