Gnosticism, the Demiurge, the Time Loop.

[cleft_asunder]

This is a nice little summary of Gnosticism. I like it because they understood the core message of Jesus, which was very simple: Find out who you are and wake up from the dream. I also like it because it's consistent with David Icke's work. First, here's a quote from the movie waking life:

Pinball playing man talking to main character:

So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.

And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.

And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.

Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."

And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?

Right.

Gnosticism and the demiurge. (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gnosticism.html)

[synergy777]

This is a nice little summary of Gnosticism. I like it because they understood the core message of Jesus, which was very simple: Find out who you are and wake up from the dream. I also like it because it's consistent with David Icke's work. First, here's a quote from the movie waking life:

Pinball playing man talking to main character:

So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.

And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.

And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.

Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."

And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?

Right.

Gnosticism and the demiurge. (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gnosticism.html)

good post.

what happens if you say yes, and nothing happens, like i did.

[stfd]

This is a nice little summary of Gnosticism. I like it because they understood the core message of Jesus, which was very simple: Find out who you are and wake up from the dream. I also like it because it's consistent with David Icke's work. First, here's a quote from the movie waking life:

Pinball playing man talking to main character:

So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.

And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.

And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.

Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."

And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?

Right.

Gnosticism and the demiurge. (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gnosticism.html)

If God intended to create 'demiurges' He would have done so.
Instead He created people, Man and Woman, one for the other.
Gnosticism as concept and principle is flawed at the core.
The syncretic theological approach with dualist character has absolutelly no basis.And you may ask 'why' .
Well because-step by step.
Syncretism in Christian theology - the attempt to mix and merge concepts of various pagan beliefs and practices into the Christian belief -->incompatible
Dualist Character-the belief that things are/have two 'natures' , simultaneous good and bad simultaneously man and woman (hence the demiurgic concept), simultaneously true and false ... etc
Usually gnostics offer the very flawed example (unfitting example) of Jesus's nature.

They say He was/is a mixture of God and man. Sort of like 50% God and 50% man. But that's not true. So they use a wrong belief as proof for yet another wrong belief.Jesus Christ was BOTH FULLY God and FULLY man.
Now try to comprehend that and the use it as 'proof' for gnosticism.
Well one can't...use the infinitum as proof and tell me where you end up...

[phildee3]

If God intended to create 'demiurges' He would have done so.



The demiurge is not a creation, it is an emanation.

The demiurge is the creator.


Nice thread ca, thanks.
I'm looking forward to this one.

[phildee3]

what happens if you say yes, and nothing happens, like i did.



You tell us! ;)

Nothing, I imagine.

[cleft_asunder]

good post.

what happens if you say yes, and nothing happens, like i did.

You have to want it as much as a drowning man wants air. Your ego will die and the absolute truth will take its place.

[cleft_asunder]

If God intended to create 'demiurges' He would have done so.
Instead He created people, Man and Woman, one for the other.
Gnosticism as concept and principle is flawed at the core.
The syncretic theological approach with dualist character has absolutelly no basis.And you may ask 'why' .
Well because-step by step.
Syncretism in Christian theology - the attempt to mix and merge concepts of various pagan beliefs and practices into the Christian belief -->incompatible
Dualist Character-the belief that things are/have two 'natures' , simultaneous good and bad simultaneously man and woman (hence the demiurgic concept), simultaneously true and false ... etc
Usually gnostics offer the very flawed example (unfitting example) of Jesus's nature.

They say He was/is a mixture of God and man. Sort of like 50% God and 50% man. But that's not true. So they use a wrong belief as proof for yet another wrong belief.Jesus Christ was BOTH FULLY God and FULLY man.
Now try to comprehend that and the use it as 'proof' for gnosticism.
Well one can't...use the infinitum as proof and tell me where you end up...

You make it sound like there is a belief system out there that is 100% true. And would you recognize it if it were so? You take one aspect of it, conclude that it's wrong, and then throw the baby out with the bath water. The only thing that needs to be true with Gnosticism and any religion is the main idea. The specifics are a waste of time to argue. All you can say in the end is, "I don't know." Instead the only thing anyone is sure of is that they exist, which is why Gnostics focus on "know thyself."

The best the intellect can do in regards to truth is to show you the door, but walking through it is done when the mind is stopped. In fact the last thing the mind would have you do is to walk through the door, since that is its final demise.

[danceswithbunnies]

Yes...very intriguing, sounds very much like a Course in Miracles as explained by Gary Renard in "Disappearance of the Universe".


Definitely relate to gnosticism the memory of something much more whole sparks at the periphery of my mind's awareness..like a will-o-the-wisp in my subconscious..

BTW Phildee...
The demiurge is not a creation, it is an emanation.

The demiurge is the creator.


From my understanding the demiurge is not an emanation, but was an accident created when one of the emanations fell from the pleroma..
Can't quite recall that story...but then there are so many different versions depending on which group is telling it.

[stfd]

The demiurge is not a creation, it is an emanation.

The demiurge is the creator.


Nice thread ca, thanks.
I'm looking forward to this one.


okay so by your discernment it goes like this:

God is the demiurge.
God is the creator.
Hence God is the demiurge.

Are you a Gnostic?

[phildee3]

From my understanding the demiurge is not an emanation, but was an accident created...



Isn't that an oxymoron?
A creation happens from intent (will).
An accident happens unintentionally.

[danceswithbunnies]

okay so by your discernment it goes like this:

God is the demiurge.
God is the creator.
Hence God is the demiurge.

Are you a Gnostic?

Doesn't it depend on which "God" you are talking about?

there are alot of other threads for debating why the pointing finger is actually the moon itself..

[stfd]

Doesn't it depend on which "God" you are talking about?

there are alot of other threads for debating why the pointing finger is actually the moon itself..


uhh riiight...
Well some have money as their God, other have their self as their God, others have food as God...
Is that what you're talking about?

[phildee3]

okay so by your discernment it goes like this:

God is the demiurge.
God is the creator.
Hence God is the demiurge.



I didn't say that.
My God is Ayn Soph.
Your God is your God.



Are you a Gnostic?



As opposed to something else?
No.
As well as everything else?
Yes.

[omegasol]

okay so by your discernment it goes like this:

God is the demiurge.
God is the creator.
Hence God is the demiurge.

Are you a Gnostic?

english is not my first language, so this might sound funny.

god is not the demiurge. the (a) demiurge is a lesser god, a sub-god-like-figure. He created the material world, he didn´t create everything.



@OP: thanks for this posting. It´s totally weird, but Valis just popped into my life again two hours ago. i read it ~15 years ago, and now it´s coming back and i think it will be MUCH MORE rewarding reading it again now. i also totally agree with your statement about the core-statement of jesus.

[stfd]

I didn't say that.
My God is Ayn Soph.
Your God is your God.



As opposed to something else?
No.
As well as everything else?
Yes.

So into kaballah lately eh .... niiiice...

http://www.yeatsvision.com/Images/KircherTreeLife.jpg

http://www.crossroad.to/images/extra/Kabbal1.jpg

[omegasol]

So into kaballah lately eh .... niiiice...

what´s the point of this post?

[stfd]

what´s the point of this post?

just wanted to make sure, that's all.

[phildee3]

So into kaballah lately eh .... niiiice...



Not really.
I usually use a more Gnostic term - the all-that-is,
or G_d.
Kabbalists call it ayn soph.
It's what it is that matters, not what you call it.

[phildee3]

just wanted to make sure, that's all.



Would you like to see my reading list from the past month? :rolleyes:

You'll have to explain that big picture you posted sometime. I don't read Hebrew.

[stfd]

Would you like to see my reading list from the past month? :rolleyes:

nah , is cool.

[stfd]

Not really.
I usually use a more Gnostic term - the all-that-is,
or G_d.
Kabbalists call it ayn soph.
It's what it is that matters, not what you call it.

I know they do call 'it' so.
The thing which is behind the name which they atribute to the 'divine' is not that which some would otherwise be led to assume.

That's by belief on the matter.

[phildee3]

The thing which is behind the name which they atribute to the 'divine' is not that which some would otherwise be led to assume.



I think what you're getting at is a justifiable criticism of the popularist, fake "Gnosticism" and "Kabbalah."
But this thread started out with a pure Gnostic text. Nothing to do with joining a group, or a movement, or labelling oneself - just contemplating an enlightening proposition.
Lets get back to it, can we?

[tannah]

stfd man, you've done it again.:) Another thread for you to turn into christian versus satan attention seeking evangelising.

-1

[stfd]

stfd man, you've done it again.:) Another thread for you to turn into christian versus satan attention seeking evangelising.

-1

uh damn i should have stayed away eh?
Coldn't help it , had to say what i think of that :)

[stfd]

I think what you're getting at is a justifiable criticism of the popularist, fake "Gnosticism" and "Kabbalah."
But this thread started out with a pure Gnostic text. Nothing to do with joining a group, or a movement, or labelling oneself - just contemplating an enlightening proposition.
Lets get back to it, can we?

roger roger

[tannah]

uh damn i should have stayed away eh?
Coldn't help it , had to say what i think of that :)

No one implied you stay away. Would just like to see a more constructive approach toward explaining your personal opinions. Most of us know what the bible has to say, so you could see your role as expanding on why, through your own experience, one should apply the logic in the bible.

This has the potential of being an enlightening thread. What I have read of gnostic texts has led me to think they should be taken far more seriously by the fans of Jesus.:) We moan about the elites trying to mistify the truth, and in the gnostic texts we catch a glimpse of that, when we compare these texts to what became known as the bible. The gnostic texts were succesfully suppressed by thsoe that didn't want you to learn how to wake up.

You should at least familiarize yourself with specific texts and then write up a criticism on it.

Time and space, as we know it, is governed by the speed of the photon. Anything below the speed of light manifests as time and space and matter. But to the photon no time or space has been traversed, ever! It was never born, never dies, unchanging. If light is synonimous to God, then Man is always perfect in God's eyes. From the moment the seed is planted to its fruition it has been an instant thing.

This has led me to believe that there is a sacred aspect to time, and it isn't just what people say that it is an illusion as such. The frequency is lowered in order for individual spirits to gain the experience through free will, where they will attain a Self nature based on light. Man will too see itself through God's "eyes". Time has given the opportunity to gain compassion through experience, for example.

For us, we slowly wake up as a result of time and space. We start off thinking every thunder must be a god. Then as our nature awakens more we come to realize there can only be one source which we call God. The next step isn't atheism, as one poster joked about the other day, but to take on the timeless nature.

You wrongly attribute man's desire to be God toward people who are beginning to express the inner desire for Oneness. The original sin was said to be about knowing good and evil and being God. Why would a human wish to know good and evil, if it were not to mimmick a god of judgment? These are the people pretending to be God, those who judge between good and evil. A person's desire to be at one is the opposite of this desire to be the god knowing good and evil. So, my friend, you are the one tainted with the desire to be God, judging the good and the evil. The real God doesn't perceive this so called good and evil, because God is light, never born, never dies, always love, and no need to judge at all because perfecton is always in its sight. It doesn't exist in illusion, time and space.

The earthly system builds on the desire for humans to want to be god, judging good and evil. You get choices given you constantly, pepsi or coke, the red dress or blue one.."oh that's good, but I don't like that one", "hey we must go to war and destroy the evil axis". The earthly system is set up to keep you in illusion about God. Religious books are another set of choices, where the god of judgment is promoted.

God is the "Wizzard" who casts out the desire and sees the results instantly. We are the explorers who through experience come to understand this ability, practice it and perfect it.

[stfd]

No one implied you stay away. Would just like to see a more constructive approach toward explaining your personal opinions. Most of us know what the bible has to say, so you could see your role as expanding on why, through your own experience, one should apply the logic in the bible.

This has the potential of being an enlightening thread. What I have read of gnostic texts has led me to think they should be taken far more seriously by the fans of Jesus.:) We moan about the elites trying to mistify the truth, and in the gnostic texts we catch a glimpse of that, when we compare these texts to what became known as the bible. The gnostic texts were succesfully suppressed by thsoe that didn't want you to learn how to wake up.

You should at least familiarize yourself with specific texts and then write up a criticism on it.

Time and space, as we know it, is governed by the speed of the photon. Anything below the speed of light manifests as time and space and matter. But to the photon no time or space has been traversed, ever! It was never born, never dies, unchanging. If light is synonimous to God, then Man is always perfect in God's eyes. From the moment the seed is planted to its fruition it has been an instant thing.

This has led me to believe that there is a sacred aspect to time, and it isn't just what people say that it is an illusion as such. The frequency is lowered in order for individual spirits to gain the experience through free will, where they will attain a Self nature based on light. Man will too see itself through God's "eyes". Time has given the opportunity to gain compassion through experience, for example.

For us, we slowly wake up as a result of time and space. We start off thinking every thunder must be a god. Then as our nature awakens more we come to realize there can only be one source which we call God. The next step isn't atheism, as one poster joked about the other day, but to take on the timeless nature.

You wrongly attribute man's desire to be God toward people who are beginning to express the inner desire for Oneness. The original sin was said to be about knowing good and evil and being God. Why would a human wish to know good and evil, if it were not to mimmick a god of judgment? These are the people pretending to be God, those who judge between good and evil. A person's desire to be at one is the opposite of this desire to be the god knowing good and evil. So, my friend, you are the one tainted with the desire to be God, judging the good and the evil. The real God doesn't perceive this so called good and evil, because God is light, never born, never dies, always love, and no need to judge at all because perfecton is always in its sight. It doesn't exist in illusion, time and space.

The earthly system builds on the desire for humans to want to be god, judging good and evil. You get choices given you constantly, pepsi or coke, the red dress or blue one.."oh that's good, but I don't like that one", "hey we must go to war and destroy the evil axis". The earthly system is set up to keep you in illusion about God. Religious books are another set of choices, where the god of judgment is promoted.

God is the "Wizzard" who casts out the desire and sees the results instantly. We are the explorers who through experience come to understand this ability, practice it and perfect it.

okay but...
i'm still gonna believe what i already do.
Is simplistic, staright forward and transparent.
Im sticking with it.
If i were to make the choice between enlightnment and wisdom, i'd choose the second.
And even so there is an infinite 'model' to be followed.

[danceswithbunnies]

Cleft Asunder

I am interested in your perspective about similarities between Zen and the article you posted..

okay but...
i'm still gonna believe what i already do.
Is simplistic, staright forward and transparent.
Im sticking with it.
If i were to make the choice between enlightnment and wisdom, i'd choose the second.
And even so there is an infinite 'model' to be followed.


Yes...we know.

Every thread has apparently been devoted to discussing you.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Gnosis of Christianity may be charitably be described as a Fantasy, more accurately as a Fraud.

Gnosticism originated in Babylon, wnt to Alexandria and then to Greece.

Ye Olde Mystery Schools, exactly what the Book of Yahweh/Bible implores us to avoid, as it is a snare to true spiritual development.

You'll thank me later for this Truth I share with y'all Today. :)

Who will dispute: The Book of Yahweh/Bible; is a Depaganization Programme for Humankind.

Yahshua Messiah and ALL His Apostles were Torah Conscious and Torah Observant, this is what They Taught.

Not Babylonish Mystery Schools.

The reason this fraudulent doctrine is so popular amongst so many people is the: Peter Pan Principle.

Adults who still behave as children.

irresponsible and reckless and feckless. :( So Sad, Tear '

Not one verse of the B'rit Chadash/Renewed Covenant supports the Gnosticists 'claims'.

Should anyone desire to embrace Gnosticism, stick to Babylonish, Alexandrian or Helenic, or any combination of these Mystery Schools..

Time to Grow Up peeps. :)

we're waiting for youse! :D

http://www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/preexist%3F.html


Vaya Con Yahweh!!:)

[cleft_asunder]

Yes...very intriguing, sounds very much like a Course in Miracles as explained by Gary Renard in "Disappearance of the Universe".

The Disappearance of the Universe, that's a must-read book. It's totally consistent with what the saints such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj said. One of the things that stand out in the book is the crucifixion. It explained that Jesus didn't die for our sins, but rather he was showing us the insignificance of the body which is no more than a garment. Ramana Maharshi said:

Talk 86.
The Master gave the true significance of the Christian faith thus:
Christ is the ego.
The Cross is the body.
When the ego is crucified, and it perishes, what survives is the
Absolute Being (God), (cf. “I and my Father are one”) and this
glorious survival is called Resurrection.

Although I have only read bits and pieces of A Course in Miracles, I do believe that it is what it is claimed to be.

[cleft_asunder]

Cleft Asunder

I am interested in your perspective about similarities between Zen and the article you posted..


Zen is (still?) an uncorrupted method for attaining self-realization. It doesn't have the dogma attached to it like Buddhism does. The cores of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Gnosticism, and other belief systems are all the same. But even dogma teaches because mistakes lead to present or future correction. Every path, long or short, leads to the same goal. "Not one soul will be lost," as Nisargadatta said.

[cleft_asunder]

Time and space, as we know it, is governed by the speed of the photon. Anything below the speed of light manifests as time and space and matter. But to the photon no time or space has been traversed, ever! It was never born, never dies, unchanging. If light is synonimous to God, then Man is always perfect in God's eyes. From the moment the seed is planted to its fruition it has been an instant thing.

This has led me to believe that there is a sacred aspect to time, and it isn't just what people say that it is an illusion as such. The frequency is lowered in order for individual spirits to gain the experience through free will, where they will attain a Self nature based on light. Man will too see itself through God's "eyes". Time has given the opportunity to gain compassion through experience, for example.


That sums it up nicely.

[danceswithbunnies]

The Disappearance of the Universe, that's a must-read book. It's totally consistent with what the saints such as Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj said. One of the things that stand out in the book is the crucifixion. It explained that Jesus didn't die for our sins, but rather he was showing us the insignificance of the body which is no more than a garment. Ramana Maharshi said:

Talk 86.
The Master gave the true significance of the Christian faith thus:
Christ is the ego.
The Cross is the body.
When the ego is crucified, and it perishes, what survives is the
Absolute Being (God), (cf. “I and my Father are one”) and this
glorious survival is called Resurrection.

Although I have only read bits and pieces of A Course in Miracles, I do believe that it is what it is claimed to be.

Yeah, parts of Disappearance of the Universe (DU)made sense to me too..in that nature does appear to have a deeply ugly side...i find the argument from natural evil compelling.

the idea that the body and world is the personal unconscious and collective unconscious constructed by the ego to punish, is very interesting...and actually kinda makes sense.

there is a book by Smoley you might like (or may already have)
called Inner Christianity..

There are many different ways to talk about the same thing...but they all appear to be Advaitic at root whatever the brand of mysticism:
Sufi, Zen, Gnosticism, Meister Eckhart etc..

Basically it is all one life force

[phildee3]

Zen is (still?) an uncorrupted method for attaining self-realization. It doesn't have the dogma attached to it like Buddhism does. The cores of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Gnosticism, and other belief systems are all the same.



My understanding is that Zen is Buddhist.
Just as Sufism is mystical Islam and Kabbalah is mystical Judaism, Zen is mystical Buddhism.

I also understand that gnosticism is not a belief system per se, but a way to approach any of them - seeking true understanding.

It is used mostly in association with Christianity though.


The OP is very Zen. I thought that when it was first posted.

[phildee3]

Gnosticism.
Bp Stephen A. Hoeller, 2003

"I think we could describe it as a very early form of Christianity, very different in many respects from what Christianity became later on. It is much more individualistic. It is much more orientated toward the personal, spiritual advancement and transformation of the individual, regarding figures such as Jesus as being helpers rather than sacrificial saviors. It is a form of religion that has a much more ecumenical and universal scope in terms of its relationship to spiritual, religious traditions other than the Christian.
I would say that this appears to be, as far as Gnosticism is concerned, the time that the Greeks called the kairos, the time when the Gods are reborn. We live in an age, I think, when certain timeless ideas, which have been submerged and subdued for a long time, are making their appearance once again. In that respect we're living in very interesting times as the Chinese would say. Interesting times, spiritually powerful times, always cast a great shadow. There will also be great difficulties, but I think that Gnostic traditions, along with a number of kindred ideas, are being reborn at this time, and will have a significant influence in the future. Those of us who find ourselves working within that field are singularly blessed that we can do this work at this particular time."

[phildee3]

The emanations happen in kariological time,
creation happens in chronological time.



The kariology of the emanations (in mystical Judaism) is
Ayn soph - Adam Kadmon - YHVH

[danceswithbunnies]

Hoeller is amazing.
He has a website with audio lectures too (for purchase as well as free ones)..and i have to tell you some of the free ones i have listened to are amazing.

Ecclesia Gnostica:
http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm

Web Lectures:
http://bcrecordings.net/store/
==============================================
John Lash Metahistory

(has a nice article started on main page about the hazards of blind belief and the difference between belief and knowing)

http://www.metahistory.org/

Lots of interesting articles..be sure to check out the archons articles..

[phildee3]

Hoeller is amazing.



One of the greatest men in modern times, imo.
Still running his little chapel in LA, I believe.


Ecclesia Gnostica:
http://www.gnosis.org/eghome.htm

Web Lectures:
http://bcrecordings.net/store/

[dedicate]

In another thread, I'm asking if Gnosticism isn't Christian Mysticism. I'm impressed with some similarities. But maybe it is a school of Christian Mysticism like unto Rosicrucianism or Christian Kaballa,, with findings/style/teachings unique to that school.

As for Zen being Buddhist mysticism. Strictly speaking, "No." Though Zen tends to express "The ONE" of mysticism.. it transcends the mystical experience or goes beyond mysticism.-- into the realm of centered attention on the infinite being of One-ness (sometimes often said to be One-less-ness, unknown, unsaid, atman) So there are elements of mysticism in Zen, but only because it needs to utilize the stage and understand the BEING, but will neither confirm nor deny existance.

The ain-soph of Kaballa is apparently much like the Hindu concept of Brahman. This is supposidly the Goal, and obviously the highest element of Jewish mysticism.-- the lowest element being outlined in the thread on "Understanding God as everything."-- and may relate to the bases of three pillars. --- Mysticism moves toward Understanding Absolute (Ain-Soph -- the realm of ZEN, the ultimate goal). Kaballa tree of life shows this wonderfully.

[stfd]

In another thread, I'm asking if Gnosticism isn't Christian Mysticism. I'm impressed with some similarities. But maybe it is a school of Christian Mysticism like unto Rosicrucianism or Christian Kaballa,, with findings/style/teachings unique to that school.

As for Zen being Buddhist mysticism. Strictly speaking, "No." Though Zen tends to express "The ONE" of mysticism.. it transcends the mystical experience or goes beyond mysticism.-- into the realm of centered attention on the infinite being of One-ness (sometimes often said to be One-less-ness, unknown, unsaid, atman) So there are elements of mysticism in Zen, but only because it needs to utilize the stage and understand the BEING, but will neither confirm nor deny existance.

The ain-soph of Kaballa is apparently much like the Hindu concept of Brahman. This is supposidly the Goal, and obviously the highest element of Jewish mysticism.-- the lowest element being outlined in the thread on "Understanding God as everything."-- and may relate to the bases of three pillars. --- Mysticism moves toward Understanding Absolute (Ain-Soph -- the realm of ZEN, the ultimate goal). Kaballa tree of life shows this wonderfully.


"Christian Mysticism" doesn't exist - the meanings of the two words are incompatible.

[dedicate]

stfd said: Christian Mysticism in incompatable,, does not exist.

Yes,,, I think this is addressed on the Understanding God as Everything thread.. WE are aware of the dismissal.

But let me ask STFD this: I've been noting some of your post. They seem Catholic. I'm assuming you know of the saints and saint-hood? /Do you recognize the saints? Which ones?

[stfd]

stfd said: Christian Mysticism in incompatable,, does not exist.

Yes,,, I think this is addressed on the Understanding God as Everything thread.. WE are aware of the dismissal.

But let me ask STFD this: I've been noting some of your post. They seem Catholic. I'm assuming you know of the saints and saint-hood? /Do you recognize the saints? Which ones?

Do you mean 'Catholic' as in Roman Catholic?
Yes i know one or two things about saints - i dont get what the question is tho.
Can you be more specific ?

[dedicate]

Well you seem to be Catholic,, either Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox,,, but possibly Lutheran or Episcopalian or Anglican even.... one of the more traditional non-protestant chuches. Is that right?

Then you recognize saint-hood and the saints. Is that not correct? For example,, St.Claire, St.Bernard, St Fransis, St.Augustine, ... any you can think of? More modern saints? Saints with Stigmata? Saints who have seen the Virgin?

[stfd]

Well you seem to be Catholic,, either Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox,,, but possibly Lutheran or Episcopalian or Anglican even.... one of the more traditional non-protestant chuches. Is that right?

Then you recognize saint-hood and the saints. Is that not correct? For example,, St.Claire, St.Bernard, St Fransis, St.Augustine, ... any you can think of? More modern saints? Saints with Stigmata? Saints who have seen the Virgin?

I am Orthodox , the old school bunch.
As a side note, The greek Orthodox Church is not the only Autocephalous.
There are quite a few others.
That's besides the question tho i know.

So yea, the Saints.
Prior to the Schism, as we all know (do we?) there was only one Church, so all Saints were 'recognized' by all.
But after the Schism things changed:(
There are some which Rome and the East do not have in common.

[dedicate]

Saint-hood, then. We are talking about saint-hood, in your terms. Mysticism-saint-hood,,, same thing.

I note also, on the page here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_orth.aspx
it reads, " Orthodoxy is not merely some type of purely earthly organization which is headed by patriarchs, bishops and priests who hold the ministry in the Church which officially is called "Orthodox." Orthodoxy is the mystical "Body of Christ," the Head of which is Christ Himself."

note: MYSTICAL "Body of Christ".

[stfd]

Saint-hood, then. We are talking about saint-hood, in your terms. Mysticism-saint-hood,,, same thing.

I note also, on the page here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/averk_orth.aspx
it reads, " Orthodoxy is not merely some type of purely earthly organization which is headed by patriarchs, bishops and priests who hold the ministry in the Church which officially is called "Orthodox." Orthodoxy is the mystical "Body of Christ," the Head of which is Christ Himself."

note: MYSTICAL "Body of Christ".

right, but please dont try to go and turn and twist word's meanings... so so tired of that man ...

Is not Mysticism as in Ocult-Mysticism... where are you trying to get?

[danceswithbunnies]

In another thread, I'm asking if Gnosticism isn't Christian Mysticism. I'm impressed with some similarities. But maybe it is a school of Christian Mysticism like unto Rosicrucianism or Christian Kaballa,, with findings/style/teachings unique to that school.

As for Zen being Buddhist mysticism. Strictly speaking, "No." Though Zen tends to express "The ONE" of mysticism.. it transcends the mystical experience or goes beyond mysticism.-- into the realm of centered attention on the infinite being of One-ness (sometimes often said to be One-less-ness, unknown, unsaid, atman) So there are elements of mysticism in Zen, but only because it needs to utilize the stage and understand the BEING, but will neither confirm nor deny existance.

The ain-soph of Kaballa is apparently much like the Hindu concept of Brahman. This is supposidly the Goal, and obviously the highest element of Jewish mysticism.-- the lowest element being outlined in the thread on "Understanding God as everything."-- and may relate to the bases of three pillars. --- Mysticism moves toward Understanding Absolute (Ain-Soph -- the realm of ZEN, the ultimate goal). Kaballa tree of life shows this wonderfully.


exactly...and yes there are many christian mystics..
The Sufi also seem to have an understanding that sounds much like mystical judaism and christianity..

As for Christian Mystics- Theresa of Avilla, St John of the Cross, Meister Eickhart..(of course you have to realize that many of these people had to be very careful what they were saying lest they raise the ire of the church)
There are a number of modern Christian mystics as well...henri Nouwen for one.

Meditations on the Tarot Written by Valentin Tomberg...explains the difference between the Asian and Western influences..
(tomberg was an occultist who , converted later in life to the catholic church)

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/scaldecott_hubtarot_apr07.asp

Hans Urs von Balthasar has compared the author to Charles Williams, Hildegard of Bingen and even St Bonaventure, praising (with certain qualifications) the book's "superabundance of genuine, fruitful insights". An example of such an insight might be the distinction it draws between three forms of mystical experience: union with Nature, with the transcendental human Self and with God. The first is pantheism; the second lies at the heart of the Eastern religions, and leads to metaphysical distortions when Westerners take the Self to be identical with God. The third is the goal of Christianity, and is inevitably dualistic because it involves the union in love between two distinct beings. Characteristic of this third kind of mystical experience is the "gift of tears", whereas the "advanced pupil of yoga or Vedanta will forever have dry eyes".

At its orthodox core, the Hermetic wisdom boils down to the doctrine of analogy: "As above, so below." By exploring the implications of this symbolic correspondence between different levels of reality, the author opens a dimension of depth on the Scriptures and dogmas of the Church. Take the so-called Law of Reward: "Renunciation of what is desired below sets in motion forces of realization above." This leads the author into an analysis of the three sacred vows--poverty, chastity and obedience--as the basis, not just of monastic life, but of all spiritual realization. The three temptations of Christ in the wilderness are directed at the three vows, the angels who came to minister to him after his triple victory are the "response from above", bringing him a threefold reward.


At any rate.., you might enjoy the book. I have it and it is filled with insights.

[dedicate]

I'm tired of hearing "twisting words"> .. You know what that means when you say that? It means, when we are speaking, your mind is getting into a twist. You interpret the enigma of your mind changing with new knowledge as an outside twisting.

The Devil will tell me.--- Gotta do some bad so you can do the good. Now my mind might get into a twist over this, and I may accuse the tempter of twisting words.. but you know what? Either he is saying something true, or he is a lyer. Show me that I'm lying or stop accusing me of twisting!

[stfd]

I'm tired of hearing "twisting words"> .. You know what that means when you say that? It means, when we are speaking, your mind is getting into a twist. You interpret the enigma of your mind changing with new knowledge as an outside twisting.

The Devil will tell me.--- Gotta do some bad so you can do the good. Now my mind might get into a twist over this, and I may accuse the accuser of twisting words.. but you know what? Either he is saying something true, or he is a lyer. Show me that I'm lying or stop accusing me of twisting!

woah, relax i didnt acuse you of nothing geeez

i was just saying eh... to much of this forum i guess.. is like a side effect
beying on here too much you get used to everyone fighting everyone else is nuts !

So yea i didnt acuse you and if it seemed so i am sorry, alright ? sorry !

[dedicate]

Maybe I shouldn't have said, "Stop accusing me of twisting".. That may have made a differance to my tone, and I often go back and change little phrases like that, but it is done so nothing can be done. Forget it.

But we are looking at things differently now. Taking a different perspective on things.. advancing our all-ready knowledge toward something remarkably different. Looks different.

[phildee3]

"Christian Mysticism" doesn't exist - the meanings of the two words are incompatible.



What about Orthodox mysticism - Kenosis?

Kenosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[stfd]

What about Orthodox mysticism - Kenosis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis

"Kenotic Theology
Most kenoticists believe that Christ gave up His sovereign dominion when becoming incarnate. They follow the same logic as the Arians, but they are deceived into thinking their Christ is still God. These could be classified as neo-Arians. Other kenoticists believe that Christ continued being sovereign while on earth, but that His divine and human natures were not truly united into one Person. These could be classified as neo-Nestorian. Most kenoticists thus either diminish the deity of Christ or they undermine the union of the two natures in one Person. "

Kenotists as Arians and as others are heretics.
Their beliefs are at fundamental contradiction with the teachings of Christianity.
Therefore if one would refrain from using the therm Kenotic and Christian together would be correct.

[tannah]

"Kenotic Theology
Most kenoticists believe that Christ gave up His sovereign dominion when becoming incarnate. They follow the same logic as the Arians, but they are deceived into thinking their Christ is still God. These could be classified as neo-Arians. Other kenoticists believe that Christ continued being sovereign while on earth, but that His divine and human natures were not truly united into one Person. These could be classified as neo-Nestorian. Most kenoticists thus either diminish the deity of Christ or they undermine the union of the two natures in one Person. "

Kenotists as Arians and as others are heretics.
Their beliefs are at fundamental contradiction with the teachings of Christianity.
Therefore if one would refrain from using the therm Kenotic and Christian together would be correct.


Here's some more on Christian mysticism:

The tradition of Christian Mysticism is as old as Christianity itself. At least three texts from the New Testament set up themes that recur throughout the recorded thought of the Christian mystics. The first, Galatians 2:20, says that:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (KJV)

Another important scriptural text for Christian mysticism is 1 John 3:2:

Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The third such text, especially important for Eastern Christian mysticism, is found in 2 Peter 1:4:

...[E]xceedingly great and precious promises [are given unto us]; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (emphasis added)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism


This one wrong as well? And, look, here's one or two examples of christian mystics from the same wiki page:



Some examples of Christian mystics:

* St. Paul (? –c. 66)
* St. John the Baptist
* St. John the Apostle (? –c.100)
* St. Peter
* Valentinus (c.100–c.153)
* St. Clement of Alexandria (? –216)
* St. Athanasius (c293–373)
* Evagrius Ponticus (345–399)
* St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
* Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th century)
* St. John Climacus (525–606)
* St. Gregory I (590–604)
* St. Isaac the Syrian (c.700)
* St. Anastasius Sinaita (?–post 700)
* St. Symeon the New Theologian (949–1022)
* St. Anselm (1033–1109)
* Hugh of Saint Victor (1096–1141)
* Richard of St. Victor (?–1173)
* Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179)
* St. Francis of Assisi (1181–1226)
* St. Clare of Assisi (1194–1253)
* St. Anthony of Padua (1195–1231)
* Beatrice of Nazareth (1200–1268)
* Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210–1279)
* St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1221–1274)
* Bl. Angela of Foligno (1248–1309)
* Gertrude the Great (1256–1301)
* Marguerite Porete (?–1310)
* Meister Eckhart (c. 1260–1327/8)
* Bl. John of Ruysbroeck (1293–1381)
* St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359)
* Johannes Tauler (1300–1361)
* Bl. Henry Suso (1300–1366)
* St. Bridget of Sweden (1302–1373)
* St. Julian of Norwich (1342–c.1416)
* St. Catherine of Sienna (1347–1380)
* William Langland (?–1385/6)
* Margery Kempe (c.1373–1438)
* Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471)
* St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556)
* St. Teresa of Avila (1515–1582)
* St. John of the Cross (1542–1591)
* St. Francis de Sales (1567–1622)
* Jakob Böhme (1575–1624)
* Ven. Maria de Agreda (1602–1665)
* Sir Thomas Browne (1605–1682)
* Brother Lawrence (1614–1691)



* Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
* Angelus Silesius (1624–1677)
* George Fox (1624–1691)
* Jane Leade (1624–1704)
* Miguel de Molinos (c. 1628–1697)
* Madame Guyon (1648–1717)
* Johannes Kelpius (1667–1708)
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772)
* John Woolman (1720–1772)
* William Blake (1757–1827)
* George Rapp (1757–1847)
* St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759–1833)
* Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774–1824)
* Jakob Lorber (1800–1864)
* Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802–1866)
* St. John of Kronstadt (1829–1908)
* St. Bernadette Soubirous (1844–1879)
* Max Heindel (1865–1919)
* Sergei Bulgakov (1871–1944)
* St. Therese of Lisieux (1873–1897)
* Evelyn Underhill (1875–1941)
* Pope Pius XII (1876–1958)
* Antonin Gadal (1877–1962)
* St. Gemma Galgani (1878–1903)
* Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955)
* St. Pio of Pietrelcina (1887–1968)
* T. S. Eliot (1888–1965)
* Sadhu Sundar Singh (1889–1929)
* St. Theresa-Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) (1891–1942)
* St. John Maximovitch (1896–1966)
* Jan van Rijckenborgh (1896–1968)
* Maria Valtorta (1897–1961)
* Aiden Wilson Tozer (1897–1963)
* Adrienne von Speyr (1902–1967)
* Catharose de Petri (1902–1990)
* St. Faustina Kowalska (1905–1938)
* Dag Hammarskjöld (1905–1961)
* Eugenia Ravasio (1907–1990)
* Simone Weil (1909–1943)
* Thomas Merton (1915–1968)
* Vernon Howard (1918–1992)
* Thomas Keating (b. 1923)
* Henri Nouwen (1932–1996)
* Vassula Ryden (b. 1942)
* Guy Finley (b. 1949)
* Erwin McManus (b. 1958)
* Richard Foster

[stfd]

Here's some more on Christian mysticism:




This one wrong as well? And, look, here's one or two examples of christian mystics from the same wiki page:

I understand and i am aware.
All im saying is that this is not to be confused ( willingly or unwillingly) with the Mysticism as in ocult mysticism.
And also not to mix heresies -deviations from the right teaching- with such word mentioned above 'mysticism' and then expect the result to be Christianity.

[stfd]

Here's some more on Christian mysticism:




This one wrong as well? And, look, here's one or two examples of christian mystics from the same wiki page:


Is one thing i dont understand...

Why would you wanna associate the word 'mystic' to say St John the Baptist?
I mean a word is already asociated with him and that is 'Baptist'.
Would you prefer it were St John the mystic Baptist?
I just dont see where the point is:confused:

[tannah]

Is one thing i dont understand...

Why would you wanna associate the word 'mystic' to say St John the Baptist?
I mean a word is already asociated with him and that is 'Baptist'.
Would you prefer it were St John the mystic Baptist?
I just dont see where the point is:confused:

I guess he had a 9 to 5 job as a baptist, and in the evening was a mystic.

Nevertheless, what about the christian mystic reference and the definition?

[phildee3]

Their beliefs are at fundamental contradiction with the teachings of Christianity.



There is no such thing as "the teachings of Christianity."
There are many sects, each with their own teachings,

and every one is "heretical" except one's own!


You're just Miracles in a chasabule.

[stfd]

There is no such thing as "the teachings of Christianity."
There are many sects, each with their own teachings,

and every one is "heretical" except one's own!


You're just Miracles in a chasabule.

Isn't it convenient? :)
Your compliment is very welcome...

"There are many sects, each with their own teachings"
true

"and every one is "heretical" except one's own"
also true

so whats your point?

[dedicate]

In other words, stdf, The word mysticism means what you say it means.. within the boundaries of your understanding. If it is used outside that understanding, then it is Occult, Heretical, even Not True!

So within your dogma of Orthodoxies the word is sometimes used, and you can convieniently form it to fit your idea of the way things are. How nice for you.

For example when the term "mysical body of Christ" is used by your churhc,,, you can say,,,"Well, that is metaphore and allegory, symbolic use".. we are the body of Christ as Church in a sense/reality,, but not at the point of what you other guys are talking about!" REALLY?

But if one does the research into the word use of "mysticism",, then it is you who are going against the prescibed definition of the word -- AN EXTACTIC EXPERIENCE OF ONENESS, TRANSFORMATION, INEFFABLE QUALITY, DIRECTLY KNOWING etc.. This is MYSTICISM. So, a Mystical Body of Christ would contain these qualities by definition. Call it occult if you like, but to say this is Occult Mysticism would be incorrect, as it is just mysticism. Deny it's existance,,, but then remove "Mysticism" from your Religious vernacular and divorce yourself from your church for using the word.-- then take a look at the lives and teachings of the Saints you call "Saints",, and see what they say about it.

[phildee3]

so whats your point?



My point is that to a Christian mystic, you are as much as a heretic as the Christian mystic is to you.
You both have your own interptretation of what "Christian teachings" are.

[phildee3]

Anyone who sees the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine is a Christian mystic!

In fact, all of the sacraments are mystical.

[stfd]

My point is that to a Christian mystic, you are as much as a heretic as the Christian mystic is to you.
You both have your own interptretation of what "Christian teachings" are.

Uh but tell me why do you have to put it this way ?
Why can't you say in a very simple way 'Christian' , why do you have to add the word mystic after?
What is the point, why not keep things simple?

And it isnt as much about interpretations but as for what's right and what's wrong.

[stfd]

Anyone who sees the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine is a Christian mystic!

In fact, all of the sacraments are mystical.

Ok well this statement of yours is different.
And it is so , in the sense that the Sacraments arent simply 'play on scene' but actual spritual-involving acts.

[phildee3]

Uh but tell me why do you have to put it this way ?
Why can't you say in a very simple way 'Christian' , why do you have to add the word mystic after?



I didn't add "mystic," I added "Christian."
"Mystic" being the noun, "Christian" being the qualifying adjective that comes before it.

Weren't we talking about mysticism?



"Christian Mysticism" doesn't exist - the meanings of the two words are incompatible.



Now if you'd have said "mystical Christianity" I would have talked about Christianity!

[cleft_asunder]

Why do you have that symbol as your avatar stfd?

[cleft_asunder]

My understanding is that Zen is Buddhist.
Just as Sufism is mystical Islam and Kabbalah is mystical Judaism, Zen is mystical Buddhism.

I also understand that gnosticism is not a belief system per se, but a way to approach any of them - seeking true understanding.

It is used mostly in association with Christianity though.


The OP is very Zen. I thought that when it was first posted.

What is Buddhism? What is Christianity? The names just represent the dogma hiding the inner core truth. I don't know the history of Zen, but if it's simple and takes you to the root of spirituality (which is the self), then it is no more Buddhist than it is Christian. The truth is it's own thing, and what better name for it than the truth? I don't focus on special teachings though because all that is needed is to constantly be conscious of your consciousness and to live in the now. To stop thinking of the past, and to stop imagining this and that is the essential step because in the end nothing the mind produces is of any real value, and it obscures the divine which is here and now.

It's all a bit hypocritical for my to say so though, since I'm more interested in video games and useless distraction than the divine most of the time.

[phildee3]

I don't know the history of Zen,



Zen is a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism,

Zen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[miracles]

Anyone who sees the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine is a Christian mystic!

In fact, all of the sacraments are mystical.

Ah no, anyone who see's this is a stark raving lunatic. In fact you arent a Christian and I dont know why you keep proudly stating that you are. You can say a cat is a fish but it still will not swim.

[octopusrex]

This is a nice little summary of Gnosticism. I like it because they understood the core message of Jesus, which was very simple: Find out who you are and wake up from the dream. I also like it because it's consistent with David Icke's work. First, here's a quote from the movie waking life:

Pinball playing man talking to main character:

So Philip K. Dick had this theory that time was an illusion and that we were all actually in 50 A.D., and the reason he had written this book was that he had somehow momentarily punctured through this illusion, this veil of time, and what he had seen there was what was going on in the Book of Acts.

And he was really into Gnosticism, and this idea that this demiurge, or demon, had created this illusion of time to make us forget that Christ was about to return, and the kingdom of God was about to arrive. And that we're all in 50 A.D., and there's someone trying to make us forget that God is imminent. And that's what time is. That's what all of history is. It's just this kind of continuous, you know, daydream, or distraction.

And so I read that, and I was like, well that's weird. And than that night I had a dream and there was this guy in the dream who was supposed to be a psychic. But I was skeptical. I was like, you know, he's not really a psychic, you know I'm thinking to myself. And then suddenly I start floating, like levitating, up to the ceiling. And as I almost go through the roof, I'm like, "Okay, Mr. Psychic. I believe you. You're a psychic. Put me down please." And I float down, and as my feet touch the ground, the psychic turns into this woman in a green dress. And this woman is Lady Gregory.

Now Lady Gregory was Yeats' patron, this, you know, Irish person. And though I'd never seen her image, I was just sure that this was the face of Lady Gregory. So we're walking along, and Lady Gregory turns to me and says, "Let me explain to you the nature of the universe. Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, but he's wrong that it's 50 A.D. Actually, there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. I mean that's what time is. I mean, and it's no more 50 A.D. than it's two thousand and one. And there's just this one instant, and that's what we're always in."

And then she tells me that actually this is the narrative of everyone's life. That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?

Right.

Gnosticism and the demiurge. (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gnosticism.html)

Makes sense.

[phildee3]

Ah no, anyone who see's this is a stark raving lunatic.



Anyone who says they're leaving the forum and is definately never going to post another message again - and does - is a liar.

[dedicate]

phildee.. you have to be thought of and publicly called a lunatic 1,000 times by people who are considered sane in order to be on the right track. I think I heard that somewhere.

Most all Mystics and religious leaders were called crazy at one time or another. I'm sure Jesus was called "possessed" in his day. Does it say this in the Bible? I don't know, but it must be true.

Couple reasons for this..1) the truth looks crazy to those unfamiliar with it. The Toa Te Ching is crazy talk for example, unless one understands it. Then, Isaiah was known to walk around in the same unwashed pair of underwear,,, and only his underwear,,, for months at a time. 2) There is jeolousy. People will want to tare down other people just for being different.


I want to look and explore this issue in comparison to the theory of evolution of the spirit consciousness. As one moves up the ladder, each level in sandwiched in between two other levels that are similar, but one being higher than the other.. thus the saying "One must be like a child to enter the kindom of heaven". Thus also, why the level below the norm today is crazyness and the level above appears crazy. There may be something to this. So Jesus could have just as easily said, "One must become a mad man, to enter into the kingdom"-- but that would have been dangerous, huh? If he did say that it would have never made it out the edit room.