[QUOTE=WindigoXXVIII]
I wonder what he means "Avatar of the New age" ?
So far, his work is attractive to me as much as say, the hare krishna movement.
hare krishna![/QUOTE]
The Evil Krishnas!
More issues with "Gnosis"
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Jenfucius
[QUOTE=WindigoXXVIII]
I wonder what he means "Avatar of the New age" ?
So far, his work is attractive to me as much as say, the hare krishna movement.
hare krishna![/QUOTE]
The Evil Krishnas!
[QUOTE=WindigoXXVIII]
I wonder what he means "Avatar of the New age" ?
So far, his work is attractive to me as much as say, the hare krishna movement.
hare krishna![/QUOTE]
The Evil Krishnas!
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Sub Rosa
pcmv said "1) there is absolutely nothing in tradtitional Gnosticism that outlines a soteriological effect of sexual ritual."
is this a typo
soteriological?
i've never heard that word, not quite sure what you're saying
i may be able to shed some light on the sexual issue
gnosis requires a certain special harmony of forces, a balance between tensions
and this includes male/female at a very deep level
understanding gender and sexuality is a huge part of gnosis
it is shrouded in secrecy because it is very hard to communicate
(except thru the art sub rosa)
pcmv said "1) there is absolutely nothing in tradtitional Gnosticism that outlines a soteriological effect of sexual ritual."
is this a typo
soteriological?
i've never heard that word, not quite sure what you're saying
i may be able to shed some light on the sexual issue
gnosis requires a certain special harmony of forces, a balance between tensions
and this includes male/female at a very deep level
understanding gender and sexuality is a huge part of gnosis
it is shrouded in secrecy because it is very hard to communicate
(except thru the art sub rosa)
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Sub Rosa....
Just as the word "cosmology" means the study of the cosmos of a religion and all the attributes and functions that a particular religion may ascribe to that cosmos, the word "soteriology" says so for the salvational outline. That is to say, the word "soteriology" is an academic term that refers to the study of all the functions, effects, methodologies, etc., that are connected to salvation (Greek, "Soter" means savior)
My point concerining this issue is that ritual in traditional Gnosticism is connected to the effect of gaining "Gnosis", and this gnosis is in turn salvation in the Gnostic system. Not only is there no actual evidence for sexual ritual in traditional Gnosticism, but there is also a philosophical problem in trying to equate such a ritual practice with the over all soteriology as it relates to these systems both in form and function.
Let me try to break that down even a little more. If the function of a Gnostic ritual is both to present a mnemonic device for the teaching system, and to present an experience with an impact meant to trigger new understanding within the context of the system (i.e., Gnosis), then that function must be related to the form in which these lessons are passed on. Part of what makes a group Gnostic then is the form and function of its ritual as it relates to the passing on of the knowledge of particulars of the cosmos (Sophia, Demiurge, Bythos) and how that relates to salvation (Gnosis).
Samael's use of sexual ritual does not very easily put this movement into the category of "Gnostic". You partially answer this point with your next, which I have some disagrement with though.....
While I think I agree with what may be your main point, what you express is so vague that it could be said to be true of many philosophical concepts.... not only Gnosis. So, the part I disagree with is that since ethe word "Gnosis" is actually quite specific in it's meaning it does not seem to help us, or to shine any "light on the sexual issue" (as you put it), to assume that the notion of a "harmony of the forces" does anything to help us discover if two different groups are even using the word "Gnosis" to mean the same thing.
Remember, traditional Gnosticism is not dualist in the sense of wishing to find ballance of opposite forces in the universe, instead it seeks the destruction of that universe into a place where these opposites simply no longer exist.
Again, it depends partly on whos usage of the term "Gnosis" you are talking about. I think your point could be a good segue into gender as we see it in, say, Thomas, or maybe one of the more cosmologically oriented Gnostic texts instead. No one would argue that gender is not important, but I would debate whether this notion of gender is meant in a literal way.
As an aside to WindigoXXVIII
Can you explain further what you mean? How does the notion of having sex but keeping it passionless seem particularly Gnostic to you. I am not disagreing, I am just not exactly sure I am clear concerning where you are drawing the line. I mean, I do understand fully that there is an anti procreation stance in many Gnostic sects, that is a given so you need not explain that part. Instead, what I am asking is how you connect this with the notion in the quote from Jenfucius, that passionless sex is the Gnostic means of achieving that lack of procreation.
PMCV
Sub Rosa....
is this a typo
soteriological?
i've never heard that word, not quite sure what you're saying
Just as the word "cosmology" means the study of the cosmos of a religion and all the attributes and functions that a particular religion may ascribe to that cosmos, the word "soteriology" says so for the salvational outline. That is to say, the word "soteriology" is an academic term that refers to the study of all the functions, effects, methodologies, etc., that are connected to salvation (Greek, "Soter" means savior)
My point concerining this issue is that ritual in traditional Gnosticism is connected to the effect of gaining "Gnosis", and this gnosis is in turn salvation in the Gnostic system. Not only is there no actual evidence for sexual ritual in traditional Gnosticism, but there is also a philosophical problem in trying to equate such a ritual practice with the over all soteriology as it relates to these systems both in form and function.
Let me try to break that down even a little more. If the function of a Gnostic ritual is both to present a mnemonic device for the teaching system, and to present an experience with an impact meant to trigger new understanding within the context of the system (i.e., Gnosis), then that function must be related to the form in which these lessons are passed on. Part of what makes a group Gnostic then is the form and function of its ritual as it relates to the passing on of the knowledge of particulars of the cosmos (Sophia, Demiurge, Bythos) and how that relates to salvation (Gnosis).
Samael's use of sexual ritual does not very easily put this movement into the category of "Gnostic". You partially answer this point with your next, which I have some disagrement with though.....
i may be able to shed some light on the sexual issue
gnosis requires a certain special harmony of forces, a balance between tensions
and this includes male/female at a very deep level
While I think I agree with what may be your main point, what you express is so vague that it could be said to be true of many philosophical concepts.... not only Gnosis. So, the part I disagree with is that since ethe word "Gnosis" is actually quite specific in it's meaning it does not seem to help us, or to shine any "light on the sexual issue" (as you put it), to assume that the notion of a "harmony of the forces" does anything to help us discover if two different groups are even using the word "Gnosis" to mean the same thing.
Remember, traditional Gnosticism is not dualist in the sense of wishing to find ballance of opposite forces in the universe, instead it seeks the destruction of that universe into a place where these opposites simply no longer exist.
understanding gender and sexuality is a huge part of gnosis
it is shrouded in secrecy because it is very hard to communicate
Again, it depends partly on whos usage of the term "Gnosis" you are talking about. I think your point could be a good segue into gender as we see it in, say, Thomas, or maybe one of the more cosmologically oriented Gnostic texts instead. No one would argue that gender is not important, but I would debate whether this notion of gender is meant in a literal way.
As an aside to WindigoXXVIII
Then this guy does sound pretty gnostic, since sex is part of the debased material world where our spirits are trapped, and that bringing more souls into the world would be 'giving in' to the lesser creation god.
Can you explain further what you mean? How does the notion of having sex but keeping it passionless seem particularly Gnostic to you. I am not disagreing, I am just not exactly sure I am clear concerning where you are drawing the line. I mean, I do understand fully that there is an anti procreation stance in many Gnostic sects, that is a given so you need not explain that part. Instead, what I am asking is how you connect this with the notion in the quote from Jenfucius, that passionless sex is the Gnostic means of achieving that lack of procreation.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: WindigoXXVIII
okay, well I'd be hard pressed to believe that all gnostics would have been able to keep all physical appetites and passions repressed- those felt during sex. so if a gnostic were to have sex, which some surely did, it would have to be a passionless attempt. like how some had contempt for the mere act of eating and drinking, they still have to do it to live.
kinda like the evil hare krishnas, sorry to bring them up again, but they prefer their devotees to be celibate, but they still have sexually active members, but theyre still not as 'pure' as the other celibate ones. i guess what im saying is that some were more gnostic than others, thats all.
im just throwing this out there, but what if passionate sex which is incompatible with gnosis was believed to encourage procreation just because it was a product of the governing Archons. The archons encourage man's physical pleasures and other degenerate states, entrapping them into such feelings like passion...leading them to create more flaws, their offspring.
okay, well I'd be hard pressed to believe that all gnostics would have been able to keep all physical appetites and passions repressed- those felt during sex. so if a gnostic were to have sex, which some surely did, it would have to be a passionless attempt. like how some had contempt for the mere act of eating and drinking, they still have to do it to live.
kinda like the evil hare krishnas, sorry to bring them up again, but they prefer their devotees to be celibate, but they still have sexually active members, but theyre still not as 'pure' as the other celibate ones. i guess what im saying is that some were more gnostic than others, thats all.
im just throwing this out there, but what if passionate sex which is incompatible with gnosis was believed to encourage procreation just because it was a product of the governing Archons. The archons encourage man's physical pleasures and other degenerate states, entrapping them into such feelings like passion...leading them to create more flaws, their offspring.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Sub Rosa
gnosis, and salvation, are bound between adam and eve and christ/magda
love and sex are the pinnacles of consciousness
i never implied men and women were polar opposites
and lets not confuse pleasure and lust with sex
there is more to sex than sensuality
it upholds the trinity, the triple chain, and the family
man, woman, and child
and the bride and groom in holy matrimony
ultimately, sex is religion
every virgin is the product of sex
as is all created life
(don't define sex , or gender for that matter, as a purely physical thing)
gnosis, and salvation, are bound between adam and eve and christ/magda
love and sex are the pinnacles of consciousness
i never implied men and women were polar opposites
and lets not confuse pleasure and lust with sex
there is more to sex than sensuality
it upholds the trinity, the triple chain, and the family
man, woman, and child
and the bride and groom in holy matrimony
ultimately, sex is religion
every virgin is the product of sex
as is all created life
(don't define sex , or gender for that matter, as a purely physical thing)
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Sub Rosa
Moreover,
the gnosis is an attempt at sinlessness
and attempting to recognize some reconciliation with sex and sin is crucial to actively handling the wisdom and dispensing it
Moreover,
the gnosis is an attempt at sinlessness
and attempting to recognize some reconciliation with sex and sin is crucial to actively handling the wisdom and dispensing it
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Hey WindigoXXVIII, two observations I have from your post....
This statement seems internally incongruous to me. If the Gnostic in question did not repress passion, then would that passion not be expressed? So, it would seem to me that the sex expressed at this point would have just as much passion (maybe more) than with any other person.
In other words, if the Gnostic did indeed supress the passion, then there would simply be no sex. If, on the other hand the Gnostic did not supress the passion then the desire for sex would still be there, and so would the passion.
However, I think we need to take this out of the realm of what we imagine the sex and passion would be like and instead talk about the actual beliefs in the system of Gnosticism. Lets explore this further.....
I am not sure, but I get the impression that perhaps you may be talking more about Manichaeans. The reason I get this impression is the way you mentioned food (something Manichaeans were very concerned about) and the way you mentioned the seperation between the active and ascetic members (in Manichaean practice that would be the Auditors and the Elect).
While many have confused the category of "Gnosticism" to include Manichaeans, let me point out that Manichaeans are in fact not a form of Gnosticism.
Or, perhaps that was not your intent. Let me then point out that there is a bit of a tendency by modern readers to imagine traditional Gnosticism as a sort of western Hinayana, with ascetic monks hidden away in mountains seperating themselves from the world. This idea comes partly from the mistakes of some of the early German scholors on this subject (like K. Rudolf) who assumed that Gnosticism naturally expressed itself in one of two modes... severe libertine or severe ascetic. This picture, however, is simply not accurate.
Unlike the Buddhist concept of removing ones self from all passion, Gnostic thought is pretty heavily passionate in its expression. And, Gnostic initiation, like its relative in the Greek mysteries where the rituals are even called "the Passions", is very much about inciting passion.
However, just as it is true that the asceticism is often mistakenly over emphasized, so to is the libertine. Carpocrates and Cerinthus are often held up as models of Gnostic sex magicians... and this they were not.
PMCV
Hey WindigoXXVIII, two observations I have from your post....
okay, well I'd be hard pressed to believe that all gnostics would have been able to keep all physical appetites and passions repressed- those felt during sex. so if a gnostic were to have sex, which some surely did, it would have to be a passionless attempt.
This statement seems internally incongruous to me. If the Gnostic in question did not repress passion, then would that passion not be expressed? So, it would seem to me that the sex expressed at this point would have just as much passion (maybe more) than with any other person.
In other words, if the Gnostic did indeed supress the passion, then there would simply be no sex. If, on the other hand the Gnostic did not supress the passion then the desire for sex would still be there, and so would the passion.
However, I think we need to take this out of the realm of what we imagine the sex and passion would be like and instead talk about the actual beliefs in the system of Gnosticism. Lets explore this further.....
like how some had contempt for the mere act of eating and drinking, they still have to do it to live.
I am not sure, but I get the impression that perhaps you may be talking more about Manichaeans. The reason I get this impression is the way you mentioned food (something Manichaeans were very concerned about) and the way you mentioned the seperation between the active and ascetic members (in Manichaean practice that would be the Auditors and the Elect).
While many have confused the category of "Gnosticism" to include Manichaeans, let me point out that Manichaeans are in fact not a form of Gnosticism.
Or, perhaps that was not your intent. Let me then point out that there is a bit of a tendency by modern readers to imagine traditional Gnosticism as a sort of western Hinayana, with ascetic monks hidden away in mountains seperating themselves from the world. This idea comes partly from the mistakes of some of the early German scholors on this subject (like K. Rudolf) who assumed that Gnosticism naturally expressed itself in one of two modes... severe libertine or severe ascetic. This picture, however, is simply not accurate.
Unlike the Buddhist concept of removing ones self from all passion, Gnostic thought is pretty heavily passionate in its expression. And, Gnostic initiation, like its relative in the Greek mysteries where the rituals are even called "the Passions", is very much about inciting passion.
However, just as it is true that the asceticism is often mistakenly over emphasized, so to is the libertine. Carpocrates and Cerinthus are often held up as models of Gnostic sex magicians... and this they were not.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Sub Rosa
I am not completely sure if I understood your point there, or if you answered my question. Let me try to clerify here.
Two quotes from your posts...
I think these points from you could be taken in very many different ways. For instance, when you use the word "sin" it could so easily be taken to mean the common Christian notion of sin, which simply does not exist in Gnosticism. In traditional Gnostic thought, Gnosis can only be said to be an attemt to remove "sin" in the sense that sin = ignorance.
I am only trying to point out here how vague such a statement as the one I quoted from you comes across, so that I can't be sure if what you are saying is really related to Gnosticism or not.
So let me then bring this back to a question for you so that you can help me to understand what you mean. The question is..... Do you consider yourself to be useing the traditional Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis"? Or, do you consider yourself to be using a definition used by a more modern movement? If it is the former, then I think we need to be very careful about stating attributes of Gnosis without being very specific as to the meaning.
Let me also ask you something that came to mind in reading your posts in the previous conversation here concerning the Logos and Christ. I am wondering specifically which forms of traditional Gnosticism you are the most familiar with, and which texts are your favorites. This will help me understand you choice of lingo a bit better I think, and thus maybe clear up some of my confusion as to what you may mean in some particular cases.
PMCV
Sub Rosa
I am not completely sure if I understood your point there, or if you answered my question. Let me try to clerify here.
Two quotes from your posts...
gnosis, and salvation, are bound between adam and eve and christ/magda
Moreover,
the gnosis is an attempt at sinlessness
I think these points from you could be taken in very many different ways. For instance, when you use the word "sin" it could so easily be taken to mean the common Christian notion of sin, which simply does not exist in Gnosticism. In traditional Gnostic thought, Gnosis can only be said to be an attemt to remove "sin" in the sense that sin = ignorance.
I am only trying to point out here how vague such a statement as the one I quoted from you comes across, so that I can't be sure if what you are saying is really related to Gnosticism or not.
So let me then bring this back to a question for you so that you can help me to understand what you mean. The question is..... Do you consider yourself to be useing the traditional Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis"? Or, do you consider yourself to be using a definition used by a more modern movement? If it is the former, then I think we need to be very careful about stating attributes of Gnosis without being very specific as to the meaning.
Let me also ask you something that came to mind in reading your posts in the previous conversation here concerning the Logos and Christ. I am wondering specifically which forms of traditional Gnosticism you are the most familiar with, and which texts are your favorites. This will help me understand you choice of lingo a bit better I think, and thus maybe clear up some of my confusion as to what you may mean in some particular cases.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Isabel
Samael uses the Word Gnosis as a special type of Knowledge.
The Gnostics were those who held this Knowledge.
Samael Aun Weor's traditions reflect those of Basilides and others in many theoretical and practical ways.
The problem is that, due to the lack of their original writings, the vast majority of scholars know absolutely nothing of the actual practices, the secret practices of the ancient Gnostics.
Thus, the scholars think they know everything because they have read and reread the few manuscripts that were saved from the hands of the Church etc.
Dualism is inherent in this world. We can only escape duality once we have freed ourselves from the world of Hyle. We are submitted to the influence of Abraxas.
Abraxas is a combination of the bird and the serpent.
It is the same, in essence (perhaps not in the historical aspect or even in the fanatically rational mind of PMVC--sorry, not trying to insult you but...) as the symbol of the Caduceus. The feathered serpent is in every religion!
It is QUETZALCOATL, the feathered serpent of the Aztecs (sorry for not just discussing ancient Gnostic cults here in the scholarly aspect, but PMVC, let me make this point).
To be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove...
The dove comes from the heavens and the serpent writhes upon the earth. The white dove is what fecundated Mary (symbolically speaking, not literally, we're Gnostic here right?)... The serpent is what tempted Eve, sexually.
WHAT IS NOT INHERENTLY SEXUAL ABOUT THIS SYMBOL? OR MANY OTHER GNOSTIC SYMBOLS?
Instead, let's just ignore the absolute facts, let us stop investigating and piecing the universal picture together. Let's just limit ourselves to the tunnel vision of the intellectual scholars. Let us just limit ourselves to the beliefs of the church?
The scholars think that things are created from ideas and theories. We know that we and everything existant is the product of the sexual force... Whether that force expressed through what you want to call gods, archons, angels, planets whatever.
It is the attachment to this world that is keeping us trapped. Lust is a main factor in the attachment to this world. Lust is what pulls you the deepest, trapping you in matter. Does this not make any sense?
Sex, union, the transmutation of the forces that come from above (the dove) and below (the serpent) is the key. That is the meaning of the seal of Solomon.
When you say that sexual magic, or the correct use of the sexual act, is passionless, you make it sound so bitter and drab. Truly, the soul, psyche, is what experiences the joy because we, the Gnostic aspirants, are not interested in further trapping our psyches in matter! The joy of the soul outweighs the stimulation of the flesh a thousand fold!
Samael uses the Word Gnosis as a special type of Knowledge.
The Gnostics were those who held this Knowledge.
Samael Aun Weor's traditions reflect those of Basilides and others in many theoretical and practical ways.
The problem is that, due to the lack of their original writings, the vast majority of scholars know absolutely nothing of the actual practices, the secret practices of the ancient Gnostics.
Thus, the scholars think they know everything because they have read and reread the few manuscripts that were saved from the hands of the Church etc.
Dualism is inherent in this world. We can only escape duality once we have freed ourselves from the world of Hyle. We are submitted to the influence of Abraxas.
Abraxas is a combination of the bird and the serpent.
It is the same, in essence (perhaps not in the historical aspect or even in the fanatically rational mind of PMVC--sorry, not trying to insult you but...) as the symbol of the Caduceus. The feathered serpent is in every religion!
It is QUETZALCOATL, the feathered serpent of the Aztecs (sorry for not just discussing ancient Gnostic cults here in the scholarly aspect, but PMVC, let me make this point).
To be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove...
The dove comes from the heavens and the serpent writhes upon the earth. The white dove is what fecundated Mary (symbolically speaking, not literally, we're Gnostic here right?)... The serpent is what tempted Eve, sexually.
WHAT IS NOT INHERENTLY SEXUAL ABOUT THIS SYMBOL? OR MANY OTHER GNOSTIC SYMBOLS?
Instead, let's just ignore the absolute facts, let us stop investigating and piecing the universal picture together. Let's just limit ourselves to the tunnel vision of the intellectual scholars. Let us just limit ourselves to the beliefs of the church?
The scholars think that things are created from ideas and theories. We know that we and everything existant is the product of the sexual force... Whether that force expressed through what you want to call gods, archons, angels, planets whatever.
It is the attachment to this world that is keeping us trapped. Lust is a main factor in the attachment to this world. Lust is what pulls you the deepest, trapping you in matter. Does this not make any sense?
Sex, union, the transmutation of the forces that come from above (the dove) and below (the serpent) is the key. That is the meaning of the seal of Solomon.
When you say that sexual magic, or the correct use of the sexual act, is passionless, you make it sound so bitter and drab. Truly, the soul, psyche, is what experiences the joy because we, the Gnostic aspirants, are not interested in further trapping our psyches in matter! The joy of the soul outweighs the stimulation of the flesh a thousand fold!
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: [Gnostic]a+
i do enjoy samael aun weor, i own a few of his books besides just having the ebooks from sacred-magick.com ... yes, he does have gnostic characteristics, but so do theosophists in some of there teachings, thats part of the synthesis. samael talks about using the " synthetic doctrine ". to me, at times he seems more of a theosophist than a gnostic. note also that samael earned a diploma from a theosophic school in his time ( if my memory serves me right ).
i do enjoy samael aun weor, i own a few of his books besides just having the ebooks from sacred-magick.com ... yes, he does have gnostic characteristics, but so do theosophists in some of there teachings, thats part of the synthesis. samael talks about using the " synthetic doctrine ". to me, at times he seems more of a theosophist than a gnostic. note also that samael earned a diploma from a theosophic school in his time ( if my memory serves me right ).
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Isabel
I asked you in a previous conversation to demonstrate this. In this group you are not allowed to make claims unless you can back them up. It would be an interesting conversation to discover if Samael has any thing in common with traditional Gnosticism, but I have not seen it yet. I am not being edversarial here, but we have already had threads dedicated to this subject and you did not answer my questions.
Simply repeating the claim becomes "spam" (and spam gets warnings), so may I ask you once again? What specifically "Gnostic" elements in Basilides' teachings are preserved in Samael's? I know the traditional format very well, so all I am asking is for you to recount your understanding of Basilides.
PMCV
Isabel
Samael Aun Weor's traditions reflect those of Basilides
I asked you in a previous conversation to demonstrate this. In this group you are not allowed to make claims unless you can back them up. It would be an interesting conversation to discover if Samael has any thing in common with traditional Gnosticism, but I have not seen it yet. I am not being edversarial here, but we have already had threads dedicated to this subject and you did not answer my questions.
Simply repeating the claim becomes "spam" (and spam gets warnings), so may I ask you once again? What specifically "Gnostic" elements in Basilides' teachings are preserved in Samael's? I know the traditional format very well, so all I am asking is for you to recount your understanding of Basilides.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: WindigoXXVIII
youre right pmcv, i was influenced by manichaeism in that statement, and its news to me that they were not gnostic, i'll explore the rest of the forum here to find out why that is.
speaking of passion in gnostic expression , to me is a whole other kind of passion, not the sexual one we were talking about, true its very intense and passionate but in the sense of sublimity. and just to add another form of passion,the passion expressed as the passions of christ- the agony and suffering, that i think can also relate to sexuality (maybe not in his case the way it is in ours) in that its like a double edged sword at times, the longing and despair that can often be felt by people so passionately devoted to someone in a physical way that it hurts. then there are the people who complain all the time about having passionless sex so I think it does exist.
youre right pmcv, i was influenced by manichaeism in that statement, and its news to me that they were not gnostic, i'll explore the rest of the forum here to find out why that is.
speaking of passion in gnostic expression , to me is a whole other kind of passion, not the sexual one we were talking about, true its very intense and passionate but in the sense of sublimity. and just to add another form of passion,the passion expressed as the passions of christ- the agony and suffering, that i think can also relate to sexuality (maybe not in his case the way it is in ours) in that its like a double edged sword at times, the longing and despair that can often be felt by people so passionately devoted to someone in a physical way that it hurts. then there are the people who complain all the time about having passionless sex so I think it does exist.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Sub Rosa
there is nothing vague about anything i say
gnosis has nothing to do with books
gnosis is an organic living thing
(ignore me if this is over your head)
there is nothing vague about anything i say
gnosis has nothing to do with books
gnosis is an organic living thing
(ignore me if this is over your head)
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Isabel
Don't you remember that you reopened the Samael question after I posted this:
01-16-2005, 02:49 AM #47 Isabel vbmenu_register("postmenu_118046", true);
New Member
Isabel is Online:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14
Obviously, we are not as concerned here in this topic with Krumm Heller as we are with Master Samael Aun Weor. So, let me show some examples that are hopefully on topic according to your intellectual standards:
Quote:
One of the most gifted of the gnostics, Basilides, is said according to the account of Hippolytus to have spoken of a primal "non-existent god". THe school of his later contemporary Valentinus asserted "that there is in invisible and ineffable heights a pre-existent perfect aeon, whom they also call Pre-beginning, Forefather and Primal Ground (Bythos), that he is inconceivable and in visible, eternal and uncreated and that he existed in great peace and stillness in unending spaces...
from "Gnosis" by Kurt Randolph
Quote:
The Abstract Seity, the primitive Zero-Aster of the Parsis, is the life-saturated Nothingness is That...That...That...
The absolutely radical Zero in transcendental arithmetic, the Abstract Space in Geometry, the unknowable "Seity" (do not confuse it with Diety which is different), is not born, nor dies, nor reincarnates.
from "Tarot and Kabbalah" by Samael Aun Weor
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
Quote:
The lowest part of man is irrational and subjective and is related with the five ordinary senses. The highest part of man is the World of Intuition and objective spiritual Consciousness. In the World of Intuition, the archetypes of all things in nature develop. Only those who have penetrated into the World of objective Intuition, only those who have reached the solemn heights of Noetic thought, are truly awakened and illuminated.
Philokalia (writings of the Christian Desert Fathers):
Quote:
â??It (Nous) is the highest facility in man, through which - provided it is purified - he knows God or the inner essence or principles of created things by means of direct perception. Nous must be carefully distinguished from reason; nous does not formulate abstract concepts or argue them using deductive reasoning; but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience or intuition. It dwells in the â??depth of the soulâ??; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart.â?Â
Don't you remember that you reopened the Samael question after I posted this:
01-16-2005, 02:49 AM #47 Isabel vbmenu_register("postmenu_118046", true); New Member
Isabel is Online:
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14
Obviously, we are not as concerned here in this topic with Krumm Heller as we are with Master Samael Aun Weor. So, let me show some examples that are hopefully on topic according to your intellectual standards:
Quote:
One of the most gifted of the gnostics, Basilides, is said according to the account of Hippolytus to have spoken of a primal "non-existent god". THe school of his later contemporary Valentinus asserted "that there is in invisible and ineffable heights a pre-existent perfect aeon, whom they also call Pre-beginning, Forefather and Primal Ground (Bythos), that he is inconceivable and in visible, eternal and uncreated and that he existed in great peace and stillness in unending spaces...
from "Gnosis" by Kurt Randolph
Quote:
The Abstract Seity, the primitive Zero-Aster of the Parsis, is the life-saturated Nothingness is That...That...That...
The absolutely radical Zero in transcendental arithmetic, the Abstract Space in Geometry, the unknowable "Seity" (do not confuse it with Diety which is different), is not born, nor dies, nor reincarnates.
from "Tarot and Kabbalah" by Samael Aun Weor
Samael Aun Weor wrote:
Quote:
The lowest part of man is irrational and subjective and is related with the five ordinary senses. The highest part of man is the World of Intuition and objective spiritual Consciousness. In the World of Intuition, the archetypes of all things in nature develop. Only those who have penetrated into the World of objective Intuition, only those who have reached the solemn heights of Noetic thought, are truly awakened and illuminated.
Philokalia (writings of the Christian Desert Fathers):
Quote:
â??It (Nous) is the highest facility in man, through which - provided it is purified - he knows God or the inner essence or principles of created things by means of direct perception. Nous must be carefully distinguished from reason; nous does not formulate abstract concepts or argue them using deductive reasoning; but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience or intuition. It dwells in the â??depth of the soulâ??; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart.â?Â
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Isabel
PMVC also wrote:
(the name is "ISABEL", by the way)
I also read your last post on that other thread, sorry I hadn't read it sooner. I don't always have the time to get into such debates. I usually spend time teaching Gnosis and not trying to prove or disprove it.
Again I must apologize for not continuing to post threads about the relationship between Samael's and Basilides' or any other ancient Gnostic's doctrines...
I will get to it when I have a bit more free time.
But, do me the favor of not erasing my posts which are inherently based upon the teachings of Samael Aun Weor which I will continue to try and show you are Gnostic. If I write from the point of view of a practicing Gnostic and not a person who just studies Gnostics, please be understanding.
Thanks for entertaining these subjects anyways. I think that you see that many people have questions about this subject and the only to get them out on the table is to continue to discuss them. Samael Aun Weor's popularity is only growing here in the North (USA) and it is be good for you PMVC, to further understand this doctrine and where it really comes from.
PMVC also wrote:
Izabel, you just attempted something that I have been asking the Samael followers here to do for a LONG time, and none have. For that I thank you... you have earned the right to have me not stand here and say "This is off topic" over and over again like I have previously had to *lol*. I won't have to erase the Samael thread after all I guess.
(the name is "ISABEL", by the way)
I also read your last post on that other thread, sorry I hadn't read it sooner. I don't always have the time to get into such debates. I usually spend time teaching Gnosis and not trying to prove or disprove it.
Again I must apologize for not continuing to post threads about the relationship between Samael's and Basilides' or any other ancient Gnostic's doctrines...
I will get to it when I have a bit more free time.
But, do me the favor of not erasing my posts which are inherently based upon the teachings of Samael Aun Weor which I will continue to try and show you are Gnostic. If I write from the point of view of a practicing Gnostic and not a person who just studies Gnostics, please be understanding.
Thanks for entertaining these subjects anyways. I think that you see that many people have questions about this subject and the only to get them out on the table is to continue to discuss them. Samael Aun Weor's popularity is only growing here in the North (USA) and it is be good for you PMVC, to further understand this doctrine and where it really comes from.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Jenfucius
What you are presenting is your interpretation (or rather Victor Rodriguez's) religious views of religion. It is one sided and it is bias. Now does that mean all groups interpret religion, sex magic, the world etc. the same way? No of course not. Unfortunaly you come of as a fundamentalist religious fanatic who thinks they are the only one who has the right way and the rest of the world is wrong. Leave the spam behind please.
[QUOTE=Isabel].... I think that you see that many people have questions about this subject and the only to get them out on the table is to continue to discuss them. Samael Aun Weor's popularity is only growing here in the North (USA) and it is be good for you PMVC, to further understand this doctrine and where it really comes from.[/QUOTE]Theres always two sides of it (or rather several).
Is the "Sameal" groups the only group that is gaining popularity in the world? Of course not. Theres hundreds of groups out there. You know how many suppose "messiahs" are out there? Theres quite a number of them.
I heard Cloneaid/Raelian Movement is an interesting group. Maybe people should join too.
What you are presenting is your interpretation (or rather Victor Rodriguez's) religious views of religion. It is one sided and it is bias. Now does that mean all groups interpret religion, sex magic, the world etc. the same way? No of course not. Unfortunaly you come of as a fundamentalist religious fanatic who thinks they are the only one who has the right way and the rest of the world is wrong. Leave the spam behind please.
[QUOTE=Isabel].... I think that you see that many people have questions about this subject and the only to get them out on the table is to continue to discuss them. Samael Aun Weor's popularity is only growing here in the North (USA) and it is be good for you PMVC, to further understand this doctrine and where it really comes from.[/QUOTE]Theres always two sides of it (or rather several).
Is the "Sameal" groups the only group that is gaining popularity in the world? Of course not. Theres hundreds of groups out there. You know how many suppose "messiahs" are out there? Theres quite a number of them.
I heard Cloneaid/Raelian Movement is an interesting group. Maybe people should join too.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Hey WindigoXXVIII
I can narrow that down a little. The problem is that Manichaean soteriology is founded in Praxis rather than Gnosis. That is to say, in Manichaeism it is a particular set of ritual practices dealing with food that is the essential function of salvation, rather than Gnosis.
I think we are in complete agreement there.
Sub Rosa
Everyone is vague sometimes. Just because you know what you mean does not mean that I should assume your meaning.... so I asked for clerification. It is no insult to you that I should do so, and a person seeking Gnosis can surely take the time to make their points clear to others now and again... eh?
Now THIS more directly answers my question. As you know, anyone can use the word "Gnosis" to mean anything. I have seen the word used to mean so many things that I no longer assume that another person is using the word to mean something I instantly recognize. Again I asked you for clerification and it should not be an anoyance that I do so, hopefully.
So, one of the attributes you use to define "Gnosis" is that it has nothing to do with books. So, I am guessing you are of that school of thought that uses the word "Gnosis" to mean some kind of "Knowledge of the heart" as Jonas (or was it Quispel?) put it. Of course, this is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word. Remember, this forum deals with traditional Gnosticism so while you are welcome to use any definition of "Gnosis" I think it would be wrong of you to assume the rest of the forum should give up the traditional meaning of the term.
In fact, one aspect of "Gnosis" very much does have a relation to the kind of knowledge found in books, it is the pliroforo half which is equated with the Logos. The other half, the xero kind of knowing that is equated with the Sophia, is the intuited and experience based. It is only when these come together that "Gnosis", in the original meaning of the word, comes to be. Unfortunately many people have bought into a misunderstanding and confuse "Gnosis" with "xero". Of course, some people consciously use a different meaning, and that is ok.
I have noticed that many people who are on one side without ballance are very quick to assume that any person who even HAS some of the other side must be fully stuck in it. For instance, people who try to define "Gnosis" as "xero" often mistakenly think that I am only some kind of academic who has only "pliroforo". On the other hand, friends who are scientists have called me the hopeless romantic touting mystical mumble.... meaning I am stuck in "xero" against their pliroforo. Funny how the center often looks like the other extreme to those who are at either end.
But I need make no apology for trying to ballance xero and pliroforo into Gnosis.... it is, after all, the goal of the Gnostic to reunite the Logos and the Sophia.
(Ignore me if this is under your nose)
Hey WindigoXXVIII
youre right pmcv, i was influenced by manichaeism in that statement, and its news to me that they were not gnostic, i'll explore the rest of the forum here to find out why that is.
I can narrow that down a little. The problem is that Manichaean soteriology is founded in Praxis rather than Gnosis. That is to say, in Manichaeism it is a particular set of ritual practices dealing with food that is the essential function of salvation, rather than Gnosis.
speaking of passion in gnostic expression , to me is a whole other kind of passion, not the sexual one we were talking about, true its very intense and passionate but in the sense of sublimity. and just to add another form of passion,the passion expressed as the passions of christ- the agony and suffering, that i think can also relate to sexuality (maybe not in his case the way it is in ours) in that its like a double edged sword at times, the longing and despair that can often be felt by people so passionately devoted to someone in a physical way that it hurts. then there are the people who complain all the time about having passionless sex so I think it does exist.
I think we are in complete agreement there.
Sub Rosa
there is nothing vague about anything i say
Everyone is vague sometimes. Just because you know what you mean does not mean that I should assume your meaning.... so I asked for clerification. It is no insult to you that I should do so, and a person seeking Gnosis can surely take the time to make their points clear to others now and again... eh?
gnosis has nothing to do with books
gnosis is an organic living thing
Now THIS more directly answers my question. As you know, anyone can use the word "Gnosis" to mean anything. I have seen the word used to mean so many things that I no longer assume that another person is using the word to mean something I instantly recognize. Again I asked you for clerification and it should not be an anoyance that I do so, hopefully.
So, one of the attributes you use to define "Gnosis" is that it has nothing to do with books. So, I am guessing you are of that school of thought that uses the word "Gnosis" to mean some kind of "Knowledge of the heart" as Jonas (or was it Quispel?) put it. Of course, this is not how the traditional Gnostics used the word. Remember, this forum deals with traditional Gnosticism so while you are welcome to use any definition of "Gnosis" I think it would be wrong of you to assume the rest of the forum should give up the traditional meaning of the term.
In fact, one aspect of "Gnosis" very much does have a relation to the kind of knowledge found in books, it is the pliroforo half which is equated with the Logos. The other half, the xero kind of knowing that is equated with the Sophia, is the intuited and experience based. It is only when these come together that "Gnosis", in the original meaning of the word, comes to be. Unfortunately many people have bought into a misunderstanding and confuse "Gnosis" with "xero". Of course, some people consciously use a different meaning, and that is ok.
I have noticed that many people who are on one side without ballance are very quick to assume that any person who even HAS some of the other side must be fully stuck in it. For instance, people who try to define "Gnosis" as "xero" often mistakenly think that I am only some kind of academic who has only "pliroforo". On the other hand, friends who are scientists have called me the hopeless romantic touting mystical mumble.... meaning I am stuck in "xero" against their pliroforo. Funny how the center often looks like the other extreme to those who are at either end.
But I need make no apology for trying to ballance xero and pliroforo into Gnosis.... it is, after all, the goal of the Gnostic to reunite the Logos and the Sophia.
(ignore me if this is over your head)
(Ignore me if this is under your nose)
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Isabel
Yes, the question is open and I in no way meant to imply you are not welcome to talk about it.... just the opposite I wanted to make sure you talk about it. I think perhaps there was just a slight lack of communication between us since you state....
So I think we are on the same page now. I just needed to make sure you were aware that there were some things that I had asked.
Understood. And in fact it was not my purpose to debate either. Though I do think that a good honest debate can be a very good tool for understanding a subject, my only point there was to get where you are coming from in making the particular claim concerning Basilides.
While we could both argue that we would rather spend our time teaching or learning "Gnosis", the question remains as to exactly what "Gnosis" is for each of us... and Basilides. But you have already given me a retort on this point when you say.....
That is fair. Thank you for recognizing the question at hand... it was all I really asked for.
Don't worry, I had no intent of erasing your posts. I know I may seem strict, but if you think about it it really is not much to ask that people simply include something dealing with traditional Gnosticism in their posts... and you have.
Sincere apologies for the typo.... and my name in turn is PMCV rather than PMVC.
PMCV
Isabel
Don't you remember that you reopened the Samael question after I posted this:
Yes, the question is open and I in no way meant to imply you are not welcome to talk about it.... just the opposite I wanted to make sure you talk about it. I think perhaps there was just a slight lack of communication between us since you state....
.I also read your last post on that other thread, sorry I hadn't read it sooner. I don't always have the time to get into such debates
So I think we are on the same page now. I just needed to make sure you were aware that there were some things that I had asked.
I don't always have the time to get into such debates. I usually spend time teaching Gnosis and not trying to prove or disprove it.
Understood. And in fact it was not my purpose to debate either. Though I do think that a good honest debate can be a very good tool for understanding a subject, my only point there was to get where you are coming from in making the particular claim concerning Basilides.
While we could both argue that we would rather spend our time teaching or learning "Gnosis", the question remains as to exactly what "Gnosis" is for each of us... and Basilides. But you have already given me a retort on this point when you say.....
Again I must apologize for not continuing to post threads about the relationship between Samael's and Basilides' or any other ancient Gnostic's doctrines...
I will get to it when I have a bit more free time.
That is fair. Thank you for recognizing the question at hand... it was all I really asked for.
But, do me the favor of not erasing my posts which are inherently based upon the teachings of Samael Aun Weor which I will continue to try and show you are Gnostic. If I write from the point of view of a practicing Gnostic and not a person who just studies Gnostics, please be understanding.
Don't worry, I had no intent of erasing your posts. I know I may seem strict, but if you think about it it really is not much to ask that people simply include something dealing with traditional Gnosticism in their posts... and you have.
(the name is "ISABEL", by the way)
Sincere apologies for the typo.... and my name in turn is PMCV rather than PMVC.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
Quick side question: Why isn't manicheism related to the Gnostic movement?
Quick side question: Why isn't manicheism related to the Gnostic movement?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Hey Shepard of Arcadia
Manichaeans are related to, just not the same as, Gnosticism. Many movements are closely related to Gnosticism, as you know.... Classical Hermeticism, Neopythagorianism, Merkabah and Roman Catholicism. Some of these more closely than others.
Even though you are aware that modern Roman Catholics are closely related to Gnosticism on some levels, I think we would agree that they are not Gnostic. Yes, they took Gnostic terms and worked them in to their system, they preserve some Valentinian rituals in their sacrements as well... and yet they differ from Gnosticism on very important key elements.
Although Manichaeans have a cosmology that looks very Gnostic, they differ on many of the same key elements as Catholicism. In fact, Catholicism very likely gets some of these elements from Manichaeans through Augustine... but that is another subject.
For one, Manichaeans did not believe that Gnosis is salvation. Obviously this one thing alone removes them from being "Gnostic". They believed that Gnosis could lead TO salvation, just as modern Catholics do, but it was not the Gnosis itself that was salvation.
Another important destinction is the Manichaean dualism, which is essentially the opposite of Gnostic thought. In the Gnostic schools of thought there are no opposites in the spirit. The cosmic mistake happens when the singularity is fractured into the field of opposites and so ignorance of the prime source comes into being. As the emenations gain distance from the singularity, so does spiritual recognition.
The Manichaean view, in contrast, says that the natural spiritual state is of two eternal opposites, a duality, and the cosmic fall happens when darkness jumps up and mixes with the light. The goal of Manichaeism is not to rejoin a fracture, but instead to refracture something that was not meant to be joined. For this reason Manichaeans argued against the apophatic theology of the Gnostics, since this notion of absolute infinity in the theology cannot be reconciled with the Manichaean understanding. In Gnosticism, on the other hand, that apophatic theology is a key element.
There are older books, like that of K. Rudolf, that assume Manichaeans are Gnostic based on the cosmology, but this assumption comes from not having a clear outline of the Manichaean system. They were making the destinction based on the cosmology rather than the usage of Gnosis within the system. There are other differences such as the ritual practice and the notion of "sin", but these all come from the primary differences I have listed.
PMCV
Hey Shepard of Arcadia
Quick side question: Why isn't manicheism related to the Gnostic movement?
Manichaeans are related to, just not the same as, Gnosticism. Many movements are closely related to Gnosticism, as you know.... Classical Hermeticism, Neopythagorianism, Merkabah and Roman Catholicism. Some of these more closely than others.
Even though you are aware that modern Roman Catholics are closely related to Gnosticism on some levels, I think we would agree that they are not Gnostic. Yes, they took Gnostic terms and worked them in to their system, they preserve some Valentinian rituals in their sacrements as well... and yet they differ from Gnosticism on very important key elements.
Although Manichaeans have a cosmology that looks very Gnostic, they differ on many of the same key elements as Catholicism. In fact, Catholicism very likely gets some of these elements from Manichaeans through Augustine... but that is another subject.
For one, Manichaeans did not believe that Gnosis is salvation. Obviously this one thing alone removes them from being "Gnostic". They believed that Gnosis could lead TO salvation, just as modern Catholics do, but it was not the Gnosis itself that was salvation.
Another important destinction is the Manichaean dualism, which is essentially the opposite of Gnostic thought. In the Gnostic schools of thought there are no opposites in the spirit. The cosmic mistake happens when the singularity is fractured into the field of opposites and so ignorance of the prime source comes into being. As the emenations gain distance from the singularity, so does spiritual recognition.
The Manichaean view, in contrast, says that the natural spiritual state is of two eternal opposites, a duality, and the cosmic fall happens when darkness jumps up and mixes with the light. The goal of Manichaeism is not to rejoin a fracture, but instead to refracture something that was not meant to be joined. For this reason Manichaeans argued against the apophatic theology of the Gnostics, since this notion of absolute infinity in the theology cannot be reconciled with the Manichaean understanding. In Gnosticism, on the other hand, that apophatic theology is a key element.
There are older books, like that of K. Rudolf, that assume Manichaeans are Gnostic based on the cosmology, but this assumption comes from not having a clear outline of the Manichaean system. They were making the destinction based on the cosmology rather than the usage of Gnosis within the system. There are other differences such as the ritual practice and the notion of "sin", but these all come from the primary differences I have listed.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Shepard of Arcadia
Thanks PMCV that clears things up,
Anyway back to the subject at hand I understand where Isabel is coming from because she's coming from the practictioner POV. But as PMCV said reason and intellect can't be completely ignored even as a practictioner. This is expressed in the Logos and it is of great importance since it is none other than the "word" that has created humankind's entire launguage of religous expression, in this way we are like Gods. I think that the ancient Gnostics realized this power and could recognize the salvic nature the Logos could bestow. But I think balance can be the key word here since logic is completely useless without the ecstatic supramundane self knowledge from without and within.
Just my $0.02
Thanks PMCV that clears things up,
Anyway back to the subject at hand I understand where Isabel is coming from because she's coming from the practictioner POV. But as PMCV said reason and intellect can't be completely ignored even as a practictioner. This is expressed in the Logos and it is of great importance since it is none other than the "word" that has created humankind's entire launguage of religous expression, in this way we are like Gods. I think that the ancient Gnostics realized this power and could recognize the salvic nature the Logos could bestow. But I think balance can be the key word here since logic is completely useless without the ecstatic supramundane self knowledge from without and within.
Just my $0.02
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: Jenfucius
[QUOTE=Shepard of Arcadia]Quick side question: Why isn't manicheism related to the Gnostic movement?[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking of manicheism just a few minutes ago. What a coincedence.
For some strange reason I remember somewhere of manicheism being practiced in China (or at least at one time).
[QUOTE=Shepard of Arcadia]Quick side question: Why isn't manicheism related to the Gnostic movement?[/QUOTE]
I was just thinking of manicheism just a few minutes ago. What a coincedence.
For some strange reason I remember somewhere of manicheism being practiced in China (or at least at one time).
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: pmcv
Shepard....
Exactly, and the same is true in reverse.... no Logos without Sophia, but also no Sophia without Logos. It is interesting that so many modern readers get this idea that Gnosis IS the ecstatic or intuitive, when in fact the Gnostic texts make very clear that when the Sophia is without her Logos she is like a whore running around confused, seeking something she doesn't understand. I think you hit the nail on the head then.... ballance is the key word.
Jenfucius
Yes, the Manichaeans survived in China after they no longer existed in the west. They were eventually killed off by the Buddhists.
PMCV
Shepard....
But I think balance can be the key word here since logic is completely useless without the ecstatic supramundane self knowledge from without and within.
Exactly, and the same is true in reverse.... no Logos without Sophia, but also no Sophia without Logos. It is interesting that so many modern readers get this idea that Gnosis IS the ecstatic or intuitive, when in fact the Gnostic texts make very clear that when the Sophia is without her Logos she is like a whore running around confused, seeking something she doesn't understand. I think you hit the nail on the head then.... ballance is the key word.
Jenfucius
For some strange reason I remember somewhere of manicheism being practiced in China (or at least at one time).
Yes, the Manichaeans survived in China after they no longer existed in the west. They were eventually killed off by the Buddhists.
PMCV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: [Gnostic]a+
[QUOTE=pmcv]
Jenfucius
Yes, the Manichaeans survived in China after they no longer existed in the west. They were eventually killed off by the Buddhists.
PMCV[/QUOTE]
according to the work of stephan hoeller, the manicheans have never been killed of and have never had to re-emerge, they still exist in the modern day completly in iran... or was it the mandaens? :S ... 'brain fart' ... could you help clear this up for me PMCV.
also, would you mind if i asked what PMCV is the abbreviation of, i think it could be interesting to hear.
[QUOTE=pmcv]
Jenfucius
Yes, the Manichaeans survived in China after they no longer existed in the west. They were eventually killed off by the Buddhists.
PMCV[/QUOTE]
according to the work of stephan hoeller, the manicheans have never been killed of and have never had to re-emerge, they still exist in the modern day completly in iran... or was it the mandaens? :S ... 'brain fart' ... could you help clear this up for me PMCV.
also, would you mind if i asked what PMCV is the abbreviation of, i think it could be interesting to hear.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
More issues with "Gnosis"
Original post: uraeusheap
How were the Manichaeans killed off by the Buddhists? It's something the Buddhists always neglect to mention well they would wouldn't they.
(COI: hardcore Nyingma Buddhist myself.)
How were the Manichaeans killed off by the Buddhists? It's something the Buddhists always neglect to mention well they would wouldn't they.
(COI: hardcore Nyingma Buddhist myself.)