My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

reply to post by dontreally


Ok, mang (or mangette). I sense you are at a 'Red Pill or Blue Pill' moment in your life with this stuff, so let's you and I do this...

Well, when you use another group as your arch-satan, then i think its important to know what that other group ACTUALLY believes.

All I am trying to point out is that you seem to want to drag the Gnostics up and down some kind of Biblical timeline of history as you try to make sense out of them. I tried that too and it won't work. What does Biblical exegesis have to do with the Gnostics or Gnosticism? Not being feisty; just askin'. We don't even know who the Gnostics were...

History records that English philosopher Henry More first used the new term in 1669, describing Catholicism as “a spice of the old abhorred Gnosticism.” Interestingly, More lived during the Enlightenment, a period that gave rise to a renewed interest in and study of the Gnostics.

www.vision.org...

And I know that you have the run down on how what little we know of them historically comes from criticisms of them by members of The Church.

Imagine how incredibly annoying it is for someone who actually understands biblical exegesis, to here a pseudo-gnostic or occultist preach "the jewish God is a deluded archon".

No offense but do you know how annoying people are, generally, who claim to know anything about Biblical exegesis?

I get that what these so called Gnostics said does not jibe somehow with the way Biblical exegesis explains itself to you but isn't that really just a matter of changing filters? It is for me.

As far as occultists preaching about false Gods goes; please don't make me reach for my Richmond Lattimore, Jesus said essentially the same thing to the Pharisees, it is in John.

If he were courageous enough to test his own arbitary beliefs and philosophy, he could probably come to a different perception.

Red Pill or Blue Pill?

Neither is the wrong one in your case.

Idolatry, which the bible admonishes man not to do, means just this. Dont worship your own beliefs; your own assumptions. Free yourself from their burden. Look, and see what else exists.

Is there something in "Gnosticism' or something you have read about Gnosticism that would cause you to believe that these people worshiped their own beliefs? Where would one go to, in what are called 'Gnostic Texts', to find something to support this? I ask because I wouldn't know where to go myself to refute it.

"With justice and an abundance of kindness, He does not deal harshly." G-d does not withhold reward from gentiles who perform His commandments."

As an aside: This is the sort of thing that really gets my fight up. It really pisses me off. I don't need to have reward doled out to me by some Alien God because I am a 'Gentile. My Lord doesn't buy in to the sh!? either which is why I worship Him. And that is probably why He brought a New commandment that supersedes all the rest.
I can't even tell you how much that shise upsets my spirit.


Whew!

"Righteous gentiles have a place in the world to come"

No direct offense meant towards you OP but...

Suck My Rood.

Judaism says, if you live a righteous life, if youre a good person, you build for yourself a heavenly afterlife. Thats basic logic, and thats what Judaism has always taught.

Great. But how does that jibe with salvation only coming by the Grace of God?

See why this gets confusing OP? Red Pill or Blue Pill?

But than again, the concept of the demiurge has such negative tinges to it, that i wouldnt want to attach any name of G-d to that concept.

Respectfully, OP, you seem to be all about logic and sense when it comes to what has been revealed to you by Biblical exegesis but suddenly you let your emotions reign when it comes to the demiurge because it seems negative and 'icky'.

What's up?

Whereas conversely, i find Gnosticism good in some areas, but in other areas, not so good.

How did you find the parts that are good? What are they? I ask because I am curious about how you made sense of this considering the fragmentary nature of historical texts that are considered 'Gnostic'. If you are talking about modern Gnostics like theses guys...

gnosis.org...

...in other words, Dr. Hoeller, I am not sure any more what they are up to and I personally do not care.

These days it seems to me that 'Gnosis' and Gnosis of Gnosticism comes through personal revelation and it surfaces in interesting ways in popular culture, society and media. It is like a current of information that travels with us through time. We are talking about it now. The only other things like it that I can think of that we are still talking about are Jesus (and technically we are talking about Jesus) and The Battle of Thermopylae.

Don't try to nail it down; that won't work, it is like trying to play pin the tail on the jelllo. Rather, be still and let the current run through you; This 'Gnosis' stuff seems to speak through the 'Heart'.

Im particularly interested in Zen Buddhism and am currently practicing it. I also got an interest in Hinduism, Sufism, and ancient Mythology - Babylonian, Egyptian, Druidic, aswell as Jungian psychology, comparitive mythology. Im all around fascinated by the metaphysical side of things; in religion, and its inner meaning and purpose.

We are Brothers from another Mother. Where are you sitting at? Do you go to a local Zendo?

This also crosses over with my exoteric studies; politics. I see how this gnostic spirit has animated not only ancient secret socieites, but also the campaigns of the Romans, its renaming of Judea, "palestine", after the Hebrews biblical nemesis, the philistines, and later on the Catholic Church.

I hear you. My thing is Sociology. Do you have any interest in General Systems Theory or Cybernetics?
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I agree 100%

It shows me that you understand the inner significance of Asur and Mutar.

Things which are sanctioned by God for us to use, and BENEFIT from, are those things which God has made permissible, which in most cases is explained through human reason, and a deep analysis of the circumstances of any given situation. This releases the spiritual vitality within that reality, or the spark, in kabbalistic terms, and raises that external reality to its supernal source.

It not only unifies reality with God, and raises the shekinah, or collective consciousness of mankind, but it also enables one to, as use said, reap the good work he has sown.

We make things way too difficult for ourselves by not doing whats right. If only we realized the great value, and worth in it, we'd spare ourselves needless sufferring.

reply to post by dontreally

We live in corrupt times, and the corrupt gnostics are still in control, despite their efforts to frame the Jew as the culprit.

What on earth do you mean by this? What I find amazing about this statement is that 'Gnosticism' seems to lend itself well to science fiction and so does this quote.

Wow.

reply to post by Frater210


I use gnosticism very loosely.

If youd prefer pagans, i can say pagans.

I choose to use the word gnostic, because thats the been the predominant esoteric current beneath the worlds most successful religion: Christianity.

But in essence, Gnosticism is paganism, borrowing Jewish terminology, but sticking with the perennial pagan ethos.

And there is nothing fiction, at all, about their framing the Jews. This of course wouldnt be possible without the support of other Jews, with an ideological sympathy with the hellenistic agenda, and also a lust for power.

These Jews are most likely descendants of Sabbateans and Frankists, a current within "judaism", but it couldnt be farther from Judaism. Ideologically, Catholicism has a GREAT deal more in common with Judaism than Sabbateanism, or even Reform Judaism.

I should really write a book on this, and yet im sure it would never get published.

Look at some common noble houses. Take, for instance, Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, or Otto Von Habsburg, head of the house of lorraine-habsburg.

Interestingly, their wikipedia profiles have been editted, but not so long ago, they listed their lineages, which goes as far back as the 5th and 4th centuries CE. These nobles PRESERVE power, handing it down, generation after generation. Mayors, Dukes, Kings, Emperors. They are ALWAYS in positions of power, and of course its merely been hidden nowadays behind parliamentrary governments and 'democracy', but the oligarchs remain unchanged.

How could this world be anything different? Plato - the father of philosophy, as we are so often told - advocated a philosopher class as the ideal ruling system.

This philosopher class was probably responsible, connected, or usurped Christianity, and has used it till this day to advance its own spiritual world agenda. They are mystics - as their enigmatic family seals should imply, and by all accounts, they are not the friendliest people, especially towards those who challenge their power.

reply to post by dontreally


Ok, you, the gig is up.

I see you know this stuff well enough to have blown past all the superfluous crap so it just looks to me like we fell on opposite sides of the same fence.

How is it over there? With all the memorization and math?





Edit: From this side of the fence I must say that your need to cast the 'Gno-WhoeverTheyWere-stics' as pagans is rather knee jerkesque and I bet it is wholly derivative of your reading habits; look deeper (he shouted over the fence).



Edit the edit: If these dudes have a secret club I totally want to join. I want to be a secret Gnostic. At least part time. Or maybe once a year at the Renn faire or something.

reply to post by dontreally

The world is a vampire,

sent to drain

Secret destroyers,

hold you up to the flames

And what do I get, for my pain?

Betrayed desires, and a piece of the game

Even though I know - I suppose I'll show

All my cool and cold - like old job

Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage
Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage

Then someone will say what is lost can never be saved

Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage


Billy Corgan, "Bullet With Butterfly Wings"

See what I mean by how it works it's way through our society and media?

reply to post by dontreally

These Jews are most likely descendants of Sabbateans and Frankists, a current within "judaism", but it couldnt be farther from Judaism. Ideologically, Catholicism has a GREAT deal more in common with Judaism than Sabbateanism, or even Reform Judaism.

I should really write a book on this, and yet im sure it would never get published.

Are you saying there is some kind of Gnostic Christian/Jewish conspiracy and that these guys are mystics that want to rule the planet? Do you think that you could tie in the Jesuits and the Wandering Bishops as well? I would totally read it.

reply to post by Frater210

Whew.. Mang (I picked that up too, thanks MM)

These days it seems to me that 'Gnosis' and Gnosis of Gnosticism comes through personal revelation and it surfaces in interesting ways in popular culture, society and media. It is like a current of information that travels with us through time. We are talking about it now.

I don't have much to add to this, but those are words I can jibe with.

I still read the books though.

Originally posted by dontreally

Heres something to make you think.

Given the mysteries, and esoteric basis of all religions, why does the Catholic Church, as admitted at the Vaticans own website, have a 4000 year old Obelisk from Heliopolis Egypt, standing in the middle of St Peters Basillica??? What could this possibly symbolize?

Okay. I am, once again, reading your posts because it is new to me and intriguing. I keep thinking the Gnostics have a foundational mysticism worth discovering because of their attempts to reconcile the beliefs they encountered-- drawing from the teachings of Jews and Christians, for example, and then applying their own meaning. Likewise the mystical understanding of both word and numbers I glean from your presentations.

But help me where I am, just now, please?

What is the significance of the obelisk you mention?

My understanding is that it represents the passage of both time and kingdoms-- pointing to the end of this world. I believe I have read that its base includes exorcisms as well- a combination requiring my reasoning to make a turn perhaps a bit too abrupt for my liking.

reply to post by dontreally


Well, gnostics don't like the idea of a God capable of vengeful and wrathful acts, or a God who has a zero tolerance policy to evil. They don't like the idea of suffering due to original sin and disobedience to God. They believe the key is knowledge, not listening to God, to enter paradise. God constantly calls men towards repentance and to live holy lives, because He is holy, and by His holy standards we are evil. They even elevate themselves to be a part of God because they believe the lie that they are immortal and assume the physical is evil.

reply to post by Frira


Trying to figure it out as well. As part of Hajj during the ritual called Jamarat, the Muslims apparently throw stones at an obelisk...





Also this..

The collection of Obelisks in Rome is the finest now remaining anywhere, even in Egypt itself there is no place where twelve Obelisks are collected, and some of them are remarkably perfect, so that the hieroglyphics can be read by those who understand the language.

www.archive.org...

reply to post by dontreally


Good post, although I haven't read it fully yet I just wanted to reply to the main point you seem to be making. That is concerning the Gnostic definition of God and the Demi-urge.

The Gnostic conception goes something like this.

There is a God. It is unnoticeable, imperceptible, all encompassing and although connected to us and the reality of every day, being perfect and therefore devoid of definition or thought it is incapable of being aware we, or anything else exists. It is all it. All it sees it itself. Therefore it can see nothing.

This is where the idea of the Demi-urge comes in. According the Gnostic tradition the first part of the creator to detach itself and gain 'self-awareness' was the first Demi-urge. Or the light bringer in other traditions. It was the first part of that Ineffable Most High God that was able to define itself as something else. He was the first but there was a whole host of others later created by the same process. One of these was the Lord of our World, JHVH.

These Lords, in an effort to know themselves, in turn created life as an experiment in which they participated. Living beings are seen literally as sparks of that great being put into form to animate it. The purpose of this was to enable the God to grow as well as explore the world of form and creation. The material form was something to be transcended but instead JHVH falling in love with adoration and worship sought to keep man in ignorance so that he could claim his throne indefinitely. This was represented in the allegory of the Garden of Eden.

Because Paradise, being perfect and unchanging, does not allow for the evolution of improved forms to take place, another Demi-urge was tasked to step in. This was the first light barer, Lucifer. At this point man was nothing more then a well kept pet. He was denied knowledge and obedience was demanded from him. In fact he wasn't even given an awareness of knowledge to do with anything. For God to be God, Man had to remain just Man. Lucifers introduction into the experiment was to change all of that.

The serpent represented knowledge and the opportunity to transcend limitation to become something else. Not through blind worship and obedience but through hard work, determination and intellectual ability. He rekindled the spark the divine flame within the fledgling creation and the Demi-urge was epically pissed and so set about to destroy his creation and begin again.

JHVH wanted pets that would serve as a perpetual mirror that allowed him to see God in Himself. He wanted nothing more from us then that. The others, knowing more of the ineffable, see that all things, even creations such as us, are all connected to it. They know that by real work that we are capable of achieving more divine states of awareness because that is the root of all reality.

To the Gnostic, we are JHVH and Lucifer. They are symbols of the process of the individuation and eventual recombination of the consciousness. JHVH represents the first stage of the initiate, where one needs to depend on external idols of power before one is able to take responsibility on their own. Lucifer represents the beginning of conscious liberation, where the self realizes that they are not separate from but inherently connected to some vast underlying power.

This is a Universal process. Christians see Christ, Muslims will see Muhammed, the Buddhists Buddha and so on. These leaders are the archetypes of an underlying energy that resides within all of us. The Gnostic communities considered the flesh and even the Gods to be evil because they represented limitations that man was expected to live within. They believed, no they lived, the knowledge that the whole Universe is a life of which we are a fledgling part. And from that point of view they saw any attempt to alter by manipulation of form the understanding of reality, a great heresy.

It is sad that in this day so few remnants of such a genuinely holy western spiritual tradition can be found. Its even worse there are so few left who can even begin to appreciate or understand it.

Sorry for ranting but I wanted add some clarity on their view points. Its no use trying to judge them from our own world view

i love this thread - i've recently been studying the gnostic texts and i find them fascinating and to really speak to me. thanks for the thread!

i love this thread - i've recently been studying the gnostic texts and i find them fascinating and to really speak to me. thanks for the thread!

No offense but do you know how annoying people are, generally, who claim to know anything about Biblical exegesis?

Are you saying biblical exgesis doesnt exist? or that its partial? any person can read into it whatever he wants?

If its the latter, then, i guess i have no response that will please you. I know the biblical exegesis, its been apart of Judaism since its formation. Its apart of the oral tradition.

Ancient Rabbinic figures allude to this metaphysical substratum of the Torah, but of course, its never ever spoken of explicitly, but through parable. So even when they make mention to the inner metaphysics of the Torah, they do so in a metaphysical manner!

Believe what you will. I know what i know, and likewise any Jew who has studied Judaism at an esoteric level knows; and guess what? He would never talk about it with you, the way i do.

The mysteries of the Torah are for Jews, and righteous gentiles. Basically, only those people who can be trusted, are initiated into this wisdom.

I get that what these so called Gnostics said does not jibe somehow with the way Biblical exegesis explains itself to you but isn't that really just a matter of changing filters? It is for me.

No, it isnt. I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. I have my beliefs. How do you think a Hindu would react to my forceable interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita according to my belief system?? He would say im not reading the myth properly. Im not getting the archetypal themes as they were designed to convey.

Is there something in "Gnosticism' or something you have read about Gnosticism that would cause you to believe that these people worshiped their own beliefs?

Please read that statement in context.

If a gnostic is going to use the name of God, YHVH, or Elohim, from the Torah, and insist, as many amateur mystics do, that this God was a demiurge, which has its own platonic definition, than in this context, it is complete idolatry to refuse to study the proper metaphysics as traditionally taught.

If youre interested in that, there are many people in which you could turn.

As an aside: This is the sort of thing that really gets my fight up. It really pisses me off. I don't need to have reward doled out to me by some Alien God because I am a 'Gentile. My Lord doesn't buy in to the sh!? either which is why I worship Him. And that is probably why He brought a New commandment that supersedes all the rest.

What about it bothers you??? By reward, is simply meant, a causitive response from reality. You do good, and good will come your way. You do evil, and evil will come your way. Like attracts like. This is how the creator established the world. An effect is always similar in some way to its cause.

In anycase, way to ignore my point. Christianity and Islam, have both LIED, to its adherents and potential converts, by telling them they will go to hell if they dont accept this new revelation.

That is nonsense, and if your head were screwed on right, THAT, would be the thing that should bother you, and not the teaching of the Rabbis, that a righteous gentile - who lives rightly - will be "rewarded" by Elohim - the strict measure of Justice - for his labors in this lower world.

Great. But how does that jibe with salvation only coming by the Grace of God?

Whats especially funny about this idea, is that you cant even logically explain it. Are you trying to avoid the system? Its seems this is what gnostics and their like are interested in.

Im not sure what salvation by 'grace' means. I feel pretty full of grace; i feel Gods love, and support, yet i havent subscribed to the calvanist doctrine of total depravity.

I think this world and life involves labor, and work, and nobody should be so stupid to think good comes without any effort. But - as you have shown me - Christians, like you, think grace comes without any effort. Just Accept christ, and BAMMM - you got your ticket to salvation. Just follow some basic philosophical precepts, and dont worry about the fruit of your thought, speech and deed., i got that covered.

See why this gets confusing OP? Red Pill or Blue Pill?

Again. Assumptions. I have tried to speak with you without insulting or resorting to derogatory remarks, but alas, you have not shown me this same consideration. All you keep doing is repeating this line from the matrix - as if i have taken the blue pill, because i "cant handle reality" the way it is.

Assumptions. You made your "this world is a meaningless mistake, an abortion of the pleroma" nonsense. Do you see how this is a basic assumption of yours? Its really no different from mine. I just prefer to be optimistic about the world.

Respectfully, OP, you seem to be all about logic and sense when it comes to what has been revealed to you by Biblical exegesis but suddenly you let your emotions reign when it comes to the demiurge because it seems negative and 'icky'.

This is whats up. I believe in a WILLFULL creator. Elohim is not meant to be a 'demiurge', atleast not in the gnostic sense.

Elohim is a screen, a archetype of contraction, it is nature (same gematria, but clearly this doesnt fascinate you), or a cup, or a vessel for the higher essence of God, YHVH, to reveal itself.

This is what is meant by the Israelite declaration of faith

Shema Yisrael, YHVH Eloheinu, YHVH Echad

You probably think, as all gnostic nihilists are apt to assume, that this an interpolation into the verse. But, as with verything involving Hebrew, and the Torah, that is not the case. It is a metaphysical formula.

Shema - Hear, instructs the mind - Binah - understanding, or cogitation,
Yisrael - as is explained in kabbalistic works, Yisrael refers to that aspect of the heart, which responds to the wisdom and direction of the understanding mind. The understanding mind says to Yisrael - HEAR!
YHVH - The essential name, the essence of creation, the purpose of existence
ELOHEINU - is our God. Eloheinu is from the word Elohim. Elohim is this world, Elohim is the God and creator of both the physical and spiritual cosmos. He IS YHVH, but at a different level
YHVH ECHAD - YHVH is ONE. He is THIS WORLD, he is the upper worlds, he is everything. He controls everything, he is trluy God at every single level.

Repeating this mantra, as i do every night, draws your mind and soul back into this primordial level of awareness.

How did you find the parts that are good? What are they? I ask because I am curious about how you made sense of this considering the fragmentary nature of historical texts that are considered 'Gnostic'. If you are talking about modern Gnostics like theses guys...

You are talking unnecessarly existential.

Im referring to the basic gnostic desire to transcend the limitations of this lower world. This is a good desire. Whats negative, in my opinion, is the theology that evolves from this basic awareness.

We are Brothers from another Mother. Where are you sitting at? Do you go to a local Zendo?

Yes... Im working with a Zen master in a very quiet part of the town north of me. I meet him every sunday and we just sit and work on some things.

Zen has really helped me clarify some issues i have been dealing with for years. Practically speaking, Zen Buddhism is a tremendously useful spiritual science, or art.

Philosophically though, i stick with th Hebraic conception of reality. It resonates with me.

reply to post by Frater210


Hmmmm..

I never realized how gnostic that song was.

I always liked it. Very catchy song.

reply to post by Frater210


Whats so strange about a conspiracy to control and design the world??

Did Plato not suggest this as being the wisest system? If such a system existed, would society, the pawns of the world, would they know anything about it? Of course not.

You would think the UNs backing of theosophy, and its undersecretary general for 45 years, Robert Muller, himself a disciple of Alice Bailey and her 'guru' djwal khul, would make you think otherwise.

Makes sense, no??

And yes, i would definitely throw the catholic church in there as the highest authority; the jesuits - and given Jesuit theology, obeying the orders of the superior being considered as not only obeying the will of God, but also deferring any moral responsiblity to the superior (following this logic, the Jesuit General has alot of explaining to do) being an integral peice of the puzzle.

Its really not that hard to explain. Theosophy ties the pieces of the puzzle together. The "perennial philosophy" and the 'traditionalist schools", also tie all the different esoteric currents in religon together. Buddhism, Vedanta, Sufism, Gnosticism, each have so much in common. And in fact, the only group they really differ ideologically with, irreconcilably, is the Jews. Judaism is the grand enemy of their agenda, which is why in the outer world, politically, the Jew - whether during the russian revolution, Nazi Germany, or today, the state of Israel (the jew of the nations) the Jew is castigated and reviled.

In Matrix terminology, the Jew is akin to agent smith

I don't know much concerning present gnosticism, but most of it was wiped out by the 5th century and there is very little information, except for the Gospel of Mary found in Cairo in 1896 and also the Gospel of Judas. I do remember watching a documentary about Mary and the disciples and their unorthodox beliefs according to Catholic and Christian beliefs and how they hid those beliefs.

If someone experiences Trust and Consciousness in the heart of the embrace,
they become a child of light.
If Someone does not receive these,
it is because they remain attached to what they know;
when they cease to be attached, they will be able to receive them.
Whoever receives this light in nakedness will no longer be recognizable;
none will be able to grasp them, none will be able to make them sad or miserable,
whether they are in this world, or have left it.
They already know the truth in images.
For them, this world has become another world,
and this Temple space [Aeon] is fullness [pleroma],
They are who they are. They are one.
Neither shadow nor night can hide them.

~The Gospel of Philip
Translation from the Coptic by Jean-Yves Leloup
English translation by Joseph Rowe,
Inner Traditions ~ Rochester, Vermont

Obviously many church teachers labored to write the longest, most convincing books against the heresies, but rather than listing them here, or even worse, trying to review each one, I want to concentrate on three major developments which at least partly were a response to heresies. Each development had major consequences for the future church.

The Apostolic Succession
Orthodox writers were battling many, especially Gnostics, who claimed to have secret tradition passed down by their leaders straight from Christ and the apostles -- tradition that was not written down in the Scriptures. In response, the orthodox fathers pointed to the major cities, where each church was led by publicly known bishops who had been ordained by those before them, churches whose leadership could be traced back to the visits of the apostles and the founding of the churches. Each of these churches could be counted on to faithfully pass on the traditions that the apostles had taught them. These traditions could be counted on to match the Scriptures, since the source of the doctrines in both cases was the apostles. Additionally, the traditions had been publicly taught from the very earliest days, and were not secret like Gnostics claimed. To whom else would the Apostles have entrusted their traditions, except the very bishops they had appointed over every church? Therefore the Catholic church contained the valid apostolic doctrine, and this was validated by the history of each church.



It is not easy to give the basic doctrines of the Gnostics, since they were not one group, but rather several similar philosophies. This doctrine must have been one of the strangest ever believed by rational people. Here are a few of the leading points:

www.ritchies.net...

reply to post by dontreally

Are you saying biblical exgesis doesnt exist? or that its partial? any person can read into it whatever he wants?

No, of course it exists; I just don't know why anyone would want to apply it to a pile of plagiarisms and rewrites of other historical texts.

Like I said; we just fell on opposite sides of the fence, and I fell pretty hard, as apparently you have as well.

Ancient Rabbinic figures allude to this metaphysical substratum of the Torah, but of course, its never ever spoken of explicitly, but through parable. So even when they make mention to the inner metaphysics of the Torah, they do so in a metaphysical manner!

This is all based on the assumption that there is anything of value in Kabbalah; for me there is not and for you there is. I am afraid that you will automatically chalk this up to lack of education but of course, I can't control that.

Believe what you will. I know what i know, and likewise any Jew who has studied Judaism at an esoteric level knows; and guess what? He would never talk about it with you, the way i do.

Same

The mysteries of the Torah are for Jews, and righteous gentiles. Basically, only those people who can be trusted, are initiated into this wisdom.

This kind of antique thinking really amuses me these days. There are no more secrets. The idea that these mysteries are doled out to the righteous really cracks me up; especially when you consider the fence thing I mentioned.
I am sorry but at this point when you bring up Kabbalah and all that I just hear, "Blah, blah, blah" I shold have mentioned that in the beginning.

No, it isnt. I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. I have my beliefs. How do you think a Hindu would react to my forceable interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita according to my belief system??

I guess it would depend on how flexible said Hindu's mind was. Aren't all these knee jerk reactions towards one another's beliefs what start holy wars and crusades?

You seem to have things pretty rigidly compartmentalized and in lockstep. Maybe you do not realize it. Just to give you some perspective; I have run in to a lot of 'Kabbalah Snobs' in my time, you aren't becoming one are you?

if a gnostic is going to use the name of God, YHVH, or Elohim, from the Torah, and insist, as many amateur mystics do, that this God was a demiurge, which has its own platonic definition, than in this context, it is complete idolatry to refuse to study the proper metaphysics as traditionally taught.

See, you want it to be cut and dry when again; the name Gnostic was given to them in the 17th century and attributing the Platonic term 'Demiurgos' to what the Gnostics may have believed is guesswork.

Loosen up a little, you are all stiff from digesting some book, I can tell because it happens to me as well.

If youre interested in that, there are many people in which you could turn.

At some point one must learn to turn to themselves. We are alone here.

What about it bothers you??? By reward, is simply meant, a causitive response from reality. You do good, and good will come your way. You do evil, and evil will come your way. Like attracts like. This is how the creator established the world. An effect is always similar in some way to its cause.

You know I am a heretical Gnostic Christian now so I don't think I really need to answer this. Enjoy the recursion.

You made your "this world is a meaningless mistake, an abortion of the pleroma" nonsense. Do you see how this is a basic assumption of yours? Its really no different from mine. I just prefer to be optimistic about the world.

Like I said, different sides of the fence. What is more interesting to me is how 2 people reading the same crap ended up like this.

You are talking unnecessarly existential. Im referring to the basic gnostic desire to transcend the limitations of this lower world. This is a good desire. Whats negative, in my opinion, is the theology that evolves from this basic awareness.

It is going to come down to what the 'Gnostics' really thought and you know as well as I do that you are totally on your own with that. You can take the historical opinions that please you and grind them all day if you like but it won't bring either of our understanding along any further. No ones fault there; just the facts.

Zen has really helped me clarify some issues i have been dealing with for years. Practically speaking, Zen Buddhism is a tremendously useful spiritual science, or art.

I used to sit at LAZC when Maezumi Roshi was still alive, but I bet you can already guess that I don't attend sitting practice or Dokusan anymore.

Thanks for getting back to me, you have a fine mind. I bet we could get somewhere with the obelisk thing if we all put our heads together.

reply to post by dontreally


Damn, you are good.

It's like our brains have been to school together but you got all 'Kabbalah Crazy'

Love the scope of your mind and the speed is really impressive.



By the way, I consider the Blavatsky woman to be another abhorrent plagiarist.



Hey, you know, I don't even think it really matters which of us thinks what. In the midst of our sort of pseudo arguing you have dropped some killer stuff that has me really intrigued.

Do a thread on the pillar/ obelisk thing. I have contacted SLAYER69 to see if he can dig up anything on what the original Pillars of Mena may have looked like. I found that image above on ATS and I am still searching. Cool thing is I could swear I read somewhere that the original Pillars where Black Obelisks. Know anything about it?

Here is a link to some Wandering Bishop stuff.

www.hometemple.org...

I think ATS would dig the thread.