BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

View previous topic View next topic Go down

BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:48 am

For the trained contemplatives, who are the only true experts in these matters, the wisdom of contemplation is viewed "as a direct, nonconceptual intuition that is beyond words, concepts and dualities; hence it is described as transverbal, transrational, and nondual" (Walsh, 1993, p. 223). Apparently, this knowledge is not shaped by language, concepts, cultural "forms of life", etc. because the Real transcends, surrounds, and overflows the categories of thought 1 (Radhakrishnan, 1940, p. 43). The process of interpreting spiritual experiences using concepts and beliefs utilizes the "eye of the mind". Although philosophical systems can and are derived from contemplative knowledge (see the next section), the fundamental transrational insights may be comprehensible only to those who have adequately trained their "eye of contemplation" and hence "cannot be judged by unenlightened people from the worm's-eye view of book learning" (Vimilo, 1974, p. 43).

Note 1: Before one begins a spiritual practice, one's inner state invariably consists of a continuous stream of thoughts, completely enmeshed in the historical/cultural world... It is natural at this stage to assume that this state of "samsara" is the universal nature of human consciousness. However, as meditative practice deepens, one begins to observe gaps between thoughts. "As meditation slowly moves one away from sensation and thought, the formative role of background and context slowly slips away" (Andresen & Foreman, 2001). Practitioners eventually learn to disidentify with their thoughts. Thoughts drift across the expanse of the mind like clouds across the sky. The significant (transrational) experience is the sky, not the clouds. The Sufis (Inayat Kahn, 1999) say that conceptual knowledge veils transrational knowing - contemplative insight occurs when the clouds part revealing the vast splendor of the sky.

Quoted from:
The Inner Knowledge of Spiritual Experience
(Epistemology of Inner Knowledge) @ http://www.uvm.edu/giee/Tom/spirit/docs/InnerKnowledge.html


I fully agree with this - what are your thoughts?

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

It sounds reasonable to me.

Post by Lig on Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:24 am

I am not very book learned about spiritual things, and to be honest, I don't understand a lot of what they talk about because they use a lot of words that are not a part of my vocabulary. This passage has a lot of those words...

I can see the analogy about the sky and the clouds and that makes sense to me. All I have is sky. My thoughts are like those tiny twinkling stars, the ones that disappear when you try to look at them. I can hear/feel them running through my head and if I act like I don't notice them they will brainstorm all day long. Once I try to grasp at one though it's like trying to remember that elusive dream you had last night. They go from a running stream and scatter to the unreachable places.

Like now when I'm trying to get this thought together to write it down it's like my brain turns off. Like what I think writers block would feel like. Perhaps my ideas don't have words and so they resist being labeled by such. I do really enjoy thinking and wish I could explain myself in such a way that would make it easier to share my thinking with others.
avatar
Lig
Devoted Member
Devoted Member

Number of posts : 328
Age : 37
Registration date : 2008-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Beyond WCD....

Post by Guest on Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:28 am

After reading that Bob, trying to understand the things it said in the vast array of words I also don`t use every day either, I also agree with what it said. In essence it its explaining in great depth the corse of living awareness from the Highly educated mortal mind of deep thought, to a simplistic Beauty in the heavens of Sky, all within our perspectives of life, as we pass there from one to another. Bob you got me too exercize my deep thinking motal Mind again which has been awhile, it has shown me a comparasin in myself I hadn`t noticed. Very Good indeed.

Lig... also after reading your post here, I for one think You are expressing yourself Fine, and should be very Proud of yourself indeed. As You begin to know yourself more and more within Christ and the Father that is in you, those lights You see will be under your control or Vanish Completely possibly being not of the Father. Put the Love of God on and through the direction of Jesus Christ all will be known dear one.

Peace and love within God is greater than all the powers

Brother Thomas....... Very Happy Basketball

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:03 am

Admin wrote:For the trained contemplatives, who are the only true experts in these matters, the wisdom of contemplation is viewed "as a direct, nonconceptual intuition that is beyond words, concepts and dualities; hence it is described as transverbal, transrational, and nondual" (Walsh, 1993, p. 223). Apparently, this knowledge is not shaped by language, concepts, cultural "forms of life", etc. because the Real transcends, surrounds, and overflows the categories of thought 1 (Radhakrishnan, 1940, p. 43). The process of interpreting spiritual experiences using concepts and beliefs utilizes the "eye of the mind". Although philosophical systems can and are derived from contemplative knowledge (see the next section), the fundamental transrational insights may be comprehensible only to those who have adequately trained their "eye of contemplation" and hence "cannot be judged by unenlightened people from the worm's-eye view of book learning" (Vimilo, 1974, p. 43).

Note 1: Before one begins a spiritual practice, one's inner state invariably consists of a continuous stream of thoughts, completely enmeshed in the historical/cultural world... It is natural at this stage to assume that this state of "samsara" is the universal nature of human consciousness. However, as meditative practice deepens, one begins to observe gaps between thoughts. "As meditation slowly moves one away from sensation and thought, the formative role of background and context slowly slips away" (Andresen & Foreman, 2001). Practitioners eventually learn to disidentify with their thoughts. Thoughts drift across the expanse of the mind like clouds across the sky. The significant (transrational) experience is the sky, not the clouds. The Sufis (Inayat Kahn, 1999) say that conceptual knowledge veils transrational knowing - contemplative insight occurs when the clouds part revealing the vast splendor of the sky.

Quoted from:
The Inner Knowledge of Spiritual Experience
(Epistemology of Inner Knowledge) @ http://www.uvm.edu/giee/Tom/spirit/docs/InnerKnowledge.html

In a nutshell, what is said here is simply that the Spiritual/Mystic/Gnostic EXPERIENCE itself, cannot be expressed in words of any human language - for the experience is simply INEFFABLE.

When Mystics try to explain such DIVINE/HEAVENLY experiences in writing they fail miserably, and are more often misunderstood that not! Hence the confusions of all worldly religions.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Guest on Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:25 pm

Admin wrote:
Admin wrote:For the trained contemplatives, who are the only true experts in these matters, the wisdom of contemplation is viewed "as a direct, nonconceptual intuition that is beyond words, concepts and dualities; hence it is described as transverbal, transrational, and nondual" (Walsh, 1993, p. 223). Apparently, this knowledge is not shaped by language, concepts, cultural "forms of life", etc. because the Real transcends, surrounds, and overflows the categories of thought 1 (Radhakrishnan, 1940, p. 43). The process of interpreting spiritual experiences using concepts and beliefs utilizes the "eye of the mind". Although philosophical systems can and are derived from contemplative knowledge (see the next section), the fundamental transrational insights may be comprehensible only to those who have adequately trained their "eye of contemplation" and hence "cannot be judged by unenlightened people from the worm's-eye view of book learning" (Vimilo, 1974, p. 43).

Note 1: Before one begins a spiritual practice, one's inner state invariably consists of a continuous stream of thoughts, completely enmeshed in the historical/cultural world... It is natural at this stage to assume that this state of "samsara" is the universal nature of human consciousness. However, as meditative practice deepens, one begins to observe gaps between thoughts. "As meditation slowly moves one away from sensation and thought, the formative role of background and context slowly slips away" (Andresen & Foreman, 2001). Practitioners eventually learn to disidentify with their thoughts. Thoughts drift across the expanse of the mind like clouds across the sky. The significant (transrational) experience is the sky, not the clouds. The Sufis (Inayat Kahn, 1999) say that conceptual knowledge veils transrational knowing - contemplative insight occurs when the clouds part revealing the vast splendor of the sky.

Quoted from:
The Inner Knowledge of Spiritual Experience
(Epistemology of Inner Knowledge) @ http://www.uvm.edu/giee/Tom/spirit/docs/InnerKnowledge.html

In a nutshell, what is said here is simply that the Spiritual/Mystic/Gnostic EXPERIENCE itself, cannot be expressed in words of any human language - for the experience is simply INEFFABLE.

When Mystics try to explain such DIVINE/HEAVENLY experiences in writing they fail miserably, and are more often misunderstood that not! Hence the confusions of all worldly religions.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy


I have to admit Bob, I understood your explaination far better than theirs.

Thomas

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

speaking the ineffable

Post by pseudo-valentinus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:42 am

salutations Bob!
i love the opening of this post.

gnosis is ineffable, yes, but this does not mean it cannot be pointed toward and invited by the writen or spoken word. if this is not the case, what is the purpose of this forum? of the gnostic ekklesia?

a truly gnosis-oriented langauge employs the poetic and metaphorical, for gnosis cannot be 'explained'--nay, it be the giving ground of our capacity for explanation as a derivative mode of knowing (derivative episteme vs. the all-encompassing gnosis which recognises and aesthetically appreciates all duality, yet transcends and permeates all duality from core to crown as its underlying Unity). indeed, trying to 'explain' gnosis is as oxymoronic as trying to 'explain' consciousness reductionistically, using a conditioned (ie unconscious) mind to do so. a gnosis-oriented language must rather come from and point toward the kairotic opening (of the cross) which serves as threshold of time and eternity, in-finite and finite. this language must be self-reflexive (for 'the hermeneutic circle demands not that we ignore its circularity, but that we come into the circle in the right way') in pointing toward its ownmost *unconditioned* consciousness which in the Fullness of grace errupts a Word that seeks not to cling or return to a moment of gnosis passed, but surrenders in an absolute affirmation which presses forward into the gnosis ever anew (Eternally Now), the gnosis that unites the past with the future it always-already runs ahead to, dis-closing the Fullness of freedom's possibility Now. this is surely the great I AM who was and is to come.

'you will Know the truth, and the truth will set you Free.' and in Freedom, we shall rejoice, writing new gospels and hymns of praise daily. this is truly the gnostic way. and while the way is One, the transit modes and companions are many. choose carefully, but choose! for freedom is only in the choice of one possibility--that is, in affirming, one's not having chosen the others and one's not being able to choose them. grace awaits your choice. only we may open ourselves unto this grace already given, but not yet seen. so remember, if our hands are clinched, how shall they receive!?

"and heed not more the black than the white of these letters, that Silent Light in which the play, in which they find the shadow of their be(com)ing"


shalom!

pseudo-valentinus
New Member

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:21 pm

pseudo-valentinus wrote:salutations Bob!
i love the opening of this post.

gnosis is ineffable, yes, but this does not mean it cannot be pointed toward and invited by the writen or spoken word. if this is not the case, what is the purpose of this forum? of the gnostic ekklesia?

a truly gnosis-oriented langauge employs the poetic and metaphorical, for gnosis cannot be 'explained'--nay, it be the giving ground of our capacity for explanation as a derivative mode of knowing (derivative episteme vs. the all-encompassing gnosis which recognises and aesthetically appreciates all duality, yet transcends and permeates all duality from core to crown as its underlying Unity). indeed, trying to 'explain' gnosis is as oxymoronic as trying to 'explain' consciousness reductionistically, using a conditioned (ie unconscious) mind to do so. a gnosis-oriented language must rather come from and point toward the kairotic opening (of the cross) which serves as threshold of time and eternity, in-finite and finite. this language must be self-reflexive (for 'the hermeneutic circle demands not that we ignore its circularity, but that we come into the circle in the right way') in pointing toward its ownmost *unconditioned* consciousness which in the Fullness of grace errupts a Word that seeks not to cling or return to a moment of gnosis passed, but surrenders in an absolute affirmation which presses forward into the gnosis ever anew (Eternally Now), the gnosis that unites the past with the future it always-already runs ahead to, dis-closing the Fullness of freedom's possibility Now. this is surely the great I AM who was and is to come.

'you will Know the truth, and the truth will set you Free.' and in Freedom, we shall rejoice, writing new gospels and hymns of praise daily. this is truly the gnostic way. and while the way is One, the transit modes and companions are many. choose carefully, but choose! for freedom is only in the choice of one possibility--that is, in affirming, one's not having chosen the others and one's not being able to choose them. grace awaits your choice. only we may open ourselves unto this grace already given, but not yet seen. so remember, if our hands are clinched, how shall they receive!?

"and heed not more the black than the white of these letters, that Silent Light in which the play, in which they find the shadow of their be(com)ing"


shalom!
Hi pseudo-Valentinus - welcome to the Gnostic Way.

Of course gnosis and the Spiritual experience can be communicated and pointed to by written and spoken words. My point is that when people use language which is not understood by the simple/uneducated man (or, indeed, children) then they are wasting their time with intellectual claptrap - as Truth does not follow or abide in complicated theories and/or theology.

I think you will find a great difference between the words and expressions used by a genuine Spiritual Master and those used by a great intellectual theologian. Yehoshua spoke to the masses of simple people in their own simple language, but the great intellectuals of his day could not perceive the Truth of what he said - it did not, perhaps, satisfy their ego and their stubborn pride in dogma. I really think they thought him far too simplistic for their intellects.

Simple, short, accurate, explanations of Truth are far superior, and always adequate.

Peace, Love, & Understanding ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by pseudo-valentinus on Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:36 pm

salutations Bob,

many of the intellectuals of yeshua's day were the gnostics, were they not? in the NHL we quite clearly see a critical engagement with the middle academic platonism of the times, which then morphed into neoplatonism as the rising orthodoxy turned more and more hostile toward christian gnosticism. a recurring theme in valentinianism and even some of the 'orthodox' fathers such as origen and clement, is that jesus spoke on many different levels, giving people what they were capable of understanding. he frequently speaks in private to those closest to him, and here we see the kernels of the various oral traditions developed and reflected through the NHL. of course, these traditions do not contravene the more simplistic tradition of the new testament, but rather they unlock the subtleties of the new testament for those with eyes to see the full sublimity of the utterly simple gnosis--so simple it is, in fact, that it cannot be spoken.

much love.

pseudo-valentinus
New Member

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:12 pm

pseudo-valentinus wrote:salutations Bob,

many of the intellectuals of yeshua's day were the gnostics, were they not?
I do not know. I believe many that were called gnostic by others, or called themselves gnostic, were not so. One has to understand that there are pseudo-gnostics and genuine-gnostics. I would not merely assume that many intellectuals have ever been genuine gnostics - there is simply no connection with being (Spiritually) gnostic and with being intellectual. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is usually the great intellectuals who reject 'genuine' gnosis and the 'genuine' gnostics (such as Yehoshua himself).

In the NHL we quite clearly see a critical engagement with the middle academic platonism of the times, which then morphed into neoplatonism as the rising orthodoxy turned more and more hostile toward christian gnosticism. a recurring theme in valentinianism and even some of the 'orthodox' fathers such as origen and clement, is that jesus spoke on many different levels, giving people what they were capable of understanding. he frequently speaks in private to those closest to him, and here we see the kernels of the various oral traditions developed and reflected through the NHL. of course, these traditions do not contravene the more simplistic tradition of the new testament, but rather they unlock the subtleties of the new testament for those with eyes to see the full sublimity of the utterly simple gnosis--so simple it is, in fact, that it cannot be spoken.

much love.
Yehoshua (and other genuine gnostic Masters) have plainly stated that gnosis can only be truly experienced when one gives up all ego and intellectual worldly/mind pursuits. Buddha did not spend years under his tree studying books or pursuing intellectual activities, neither did Yehoshua when he went alone into the wilderness, or Mohammed into his cave - they all meditated (imo) in order to cleanse their minds of all intellectual dogma and indoctrination etc.

As has been stated by some ancient Greeks - KNOW THYSELF - this is all that is required. No need for intellect. Really very very simple. It just cannot be taught in university.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by pseudo-valentinus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:20 am

yes, the gnosis is so simple that it cannot be spoken. and this is where it *can get complicated. if gnosis only called for escapist ecstasy or 'love' in some conventionally confined sense of the term (and love, alas, is probably the most prostituted word there is in the english language), critical engagement with language and concepts would not be necessary. but the gnosis of Christ is that of the Boddhisatva (which i think is important to remember does not emerge until the 2nd-3rd century in the development of mahayana buddhism). this gnosis calls us to "become all things to all people that we might by all means liberate some," and this requires some deep water diving into the realm of philosophy, theology, and for gnostics of the 21st century, into every science which has emerged therein. (so long as we remember to see gnosis as the queen of every science, this needen't be as chaotic as one might think; it is rather a practice in reiteration, learning to see the patterns of god's mind reiterated in different but related ways and on different levels of this great chain of be(com)ing--and this process of reiteration, of anamnesis, of recollecting forward,* is of course how all learning takes place, and as such is a most fundmental stucture of our being, mirroring that of the macrocosm, or mind of god). of course this verse of of st. paul's also calls those of a more intellectual type to find rhetorically effective ways of making the complicated intelligible to the laity and uninitiated. but this does not at all mean intellectual pursuits are disparaged by this tradition. st. paul studied daily until he died, in fact. hardly anti-intellectual. and the valentinian tradition which carried on the pauline gnosis has been criticised regularly as being obscure, over-intellectual, etc. for many centuries. and many within this tradition have gone to the cross because of it. (likewise, i would say Christ was not crucified because of any particular claim he may have made, but rather because he was so horribly misunderstood by people who carried enough political clout to do away with him.)

the modern mind has inherited much toxic waste in its thought-patterning, and while meditation is an effective way of letting this go for a time, many meditation practitioners i have spoken with find it very diffecult to remain present in their everyday interactions with people whenever the slightest conflict arises *precisely because they do not have an effective language for directing themselves and those around them toward a gnosis which is so easy to lose sight of in this very chaotic world we have inherited. in the NHL we do not see commands to go sit under a tree until enlightenment is reached. we see evidence of meditative and trance-visionary states, yes, but these experiences are always interpreted within a relevent cultural matrix, critically appropriating the language and spiritual practices of the traditions that have been inherited. the valentinian/christian gnosis is a gnosis primarily *in-the-world-but-not-of-it, not one of meditative escapism (again this is a matter of emphasis, and certainly is not meant to disparage the practice of meditation as a means to spiritual growth). in the case of the gnostics these traditions appear to be primarily the radical judaism of the essenes coming into relationship with greek philosophical schools, particularly the stoics, (neo)pythagoreans and (neo)platonists. (syncretism = synergism). hence, the NHL is highly critical both of certain readings of the tanakh common to the mainstream judaism of the day, and also critical of greek philosophy, all the while gleaning as much as possible from these. we see a similar aim within the human sciences of academia today, but alas no spiritual praxis to ground it.

"the ground by which you fall is the ground by which you must rise." this culture has fallen upon a rationalism which fails to see the Heart which gives its capacity for rationality, which fails to see we must *desire to know before we can know. modern westerners who fancy themselves 'rational' (in some subrational sense of the term) will not start meditating or even considering the spiritual path if we do not provide them with a coherent logic and language for doing so, and this will require a critical appropriation of the language and concepts currently in use by them. we are in a reiteration of first and second century palestine.

shalom.

pseudo-valentinus
New Member

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Guest on Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:42 am

Bob are you suggesting that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak in a esoteric form? Or that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak using special words to give off a certain impression to the mind? I am baffled by your resent post in this thread. It almost seems like you are suggesting that people should write one sentence rhetorical statements and this is proof of being a true mystic and to go more at length or use a specific type of language they are an intellectual. Perhaps it would be better to understand why they express the way they do, it may have a reason behind it. While Yeshua gave those outside the house only "parables," within the house he is said to have given them a fuller report. To them it was given to understand, to those without it was not. And this has to do with a great deal involving the constitution and threefold nature of man, as well as the Laws, as well as what one prepares within themselves to receive it.

I believe what Pseudo is saying before that Gnostics of old were called elitist and it was said that they overcomplicated everything, by orthodoxy. That they had some secret knowledge and they made things so complex that they confused themselves. What is so simple as believing in a man and being saved by virtue of this belief? Those Gnostics made nothing easy. I wonder why (lol)?

In any case every stick has two ends. There are times when simple explanations are good, there are times when keeping it simple is merely keeping it stupid and can invoke one to move in error by virtue of such rhetorical statements. And there there is a time when giving complex or more at length explanations can invoke more harm than good. A man of wisdom must be ALL DISCERNING and he can not be the same way for everyone, because not everyone is the same, nor does a man receive in the same places of his constitution as another. And not every man receive all that can be had out of an impression at any given time. This is an Gnostics manner of approach and it is touched upon in the Gospel of Phillip,

"There was a householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or cattle or dog or pig or corn or barley or chaff or grass or [...] or meat and acorn. Now he was a sensible fellow, and he knew what the food of each one was. He served the children bread [...]. He served the slaves [...] and meal. And he threw barley and chaff and grass to the cattle. He threw bones to the dogs, and to the pigs he threw acorns and slop. Compare the disciple of God: if he is a sensible fellow, he understands what discipleship is all about. The bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the world which are in a human form. When he identifies them, to the swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will give only the elementary lessons, to the children he will give the complete instruction."

Thus preparation, a progressive movement in development of mind and the condition of the body is necessary. So a man of wisdom, must be able to see the condition of another, not just himself. Not everyone is the same in regards their minds, level of consciousness, their machine, or mechanics of their machine (how they function and relate to things).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:11 am

The_Passerby wrote:Bob are you suggesting that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak in a esoteric form? Or that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak using special words to give off a certain impression to the mind? I am baffled by your resent post in this thread. It almost seems like you are suggesting that people should write one sentence rhetorical statements and this is proof of being a true mystic. Perhaps it would be better to understand why they express the way they do, it may have a reason behind it. While Yeshua gave those outside the house only "parables," within the house he is said to have given them a fuller report. To them it was given to understand, to those without it was not. And this has to do with a great deal involving the constitution and threefold nature of man, as well as the Laws, as well as what one prepares within themselves to receive it.

I believe what Pseudo is saying before that Gnostics of old were called elitist and it was said that they overcomplicated everything, by orthodoxy. That they had some secret knowledge and they made things so complex that they confused themselves. What is so simple as believing in a man and being saved by virtue of this belief? Those Gnostics made nothing easy. I wonder why (lol)?

I any case every stick has two ends. There are times when simple explanations are good, there are times when keeping it simple is merely keeping it stupid and can invoke one to move in error by virtue of such rhetorical statements. And there there is a time when giving complex or more at length explanations can invoke more harm than good. A man of wisdom must be ALL DISCERNING and he can not be the same way for everyone, because not everyone is the same, nor does a man receive in the same places of his constitution as another. And not every man receive all that can be had out of an impression at any given time. Thus preparation, a progressive movement in development of mind and the condition of the body is necessary.So a man of wisdom, must be able to see the condition of another, not just himself.

What I say is always very very simple. I do not try to mystify things with words. Some people prefer long-winded and intellectually stimulating explanations, some people love to listen to poetry and fancy words - there is plenty of that about for them (their mind's) to get lost in. The world is full of such explanations. Perhaps this is why the way of the Master's is so simple - no need for words - just pure experience.

Yehoshua is said to have been born into simple / poor / humble surroundings, and apparently all his chosen Apostles were the same. He did not choose great orators and intellectuals to represent him. There is also a story of Moses being a poor speaker, so he used Aaron to speak on his behalf (see Exodus 4:10-16).

This is simply how I see things, and how I explain my experiences ~ simply.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by pseudo-valentinus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:22 pm

hi Bob,
may i ask how *ineffable* experience (gnosis) can be 'explained' at all--let alone 'simply'? again, while the expeirence itself is one of such utter simplicity that it cannot be spoken or explained, this does not at all mean that the project of (re)inducing this state *through* (to move by means of, and to pass *beyond* by means of) the written or spoken word is not in many cases a complicated one. the way of gnosis is the way of paradox, and thus the way of simplicity *and* complexity. peace *and* 'the sword.' humility *and* theosis. sacrifice *and* the Gift. crucifixion *and* resurrection. the possible *and* the impossible. every affirmation we can make about god (gnosis, love, mind/nous) may also be negated. god is more simple than simplicity, and more complex than complexity. god is More than any 'more' conceived. this surely is the Pleroma beyond the 'pleroma,' the One beyond words, the Good beyond good and evil, the God beyond god.

shalom.

pseudo-valentinus
New Member

Number of posts : 4
Registration date : 2008-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sky & Clouds

Post by AsIAm on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:26 pm

I want to apologize for not fully reading all of the posts, I just don't have the time right now. But, Bob, I am in complete agreement with your opening post, and I am glad to see it put so well. When I was a child I was very quiet. Everyone called me "shy" but I am sure I was much more in the open sky state of mind and didn't need to speak as much as everyone else. Eventually, the clouds rolled in! In fact, last night, at 3:00AM, I was stuck in one big cloud, lol! (one of those nights where the thoughts are way too loud). Happily, I am learning how to let those clouds pass by.

Anyway, just saying "I agree" as my two cents.
avatar
AsIAm
Regular Member
Regular Member

Number of posts : 62
Age : 58
Registration date : 2008-08-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Guest on Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:02 am

Admin wrote:
The_Passerby wrote:Bob are you suggesting that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak in a esoteric form? Or that a geniune Gnostic doesn't speak using special words to give off a certain impression to the mind? I am baffled by your resent post in this thread. It almost seems like you are suggesting that people should write one sentence rhetorical statements and this is proof of being a true mystic. Perhaps it would be better to understand why they express the way they do, it may have a reason behind it. While Yeshua gave those outside the house only "parables," within the house he is said to have given them a fuller report. To them it was given to understand, to those without it was not. And this has to do with a great deal involving the constitution and threefold nature of man, as well as the Laws, as well as what one prepares within themselves to receive it.

I believe what Pseudo is saying before that Gnostics of old were called elitist and it was said that they overcomplicated everything, by orthodoxy. That they had some secret knowledge and they made things so complex that they confused themselves. What is so simple as believing in a man and being saved by virtue of this belief? Those Gnostics made nothing easy. I wonder why (lol)?

I any case every stick has two ends. There are times when simple explanations are good, there are times when keeping it simple is merely keeping it stupid and can invoke one to move in error by virtue of such rhetorical statements. And there there is a time when giving complex or more at length explanations can invoke more harm than good. A man of wisdom must be ALL DISCERNING and he can not be the same way for everyone, because not everyone is the same, nor does a man receive in the same places of his constitution as another. And not every man receive all that can be had out of an impression at any given time. Thus preparation, a progressive movement in development of mind and the condition of the body is necessary.So a man of wisdom, must be able to see the condition of another, not just himself.

What I say is always very very simple. I do not try to mystify things with words. Some people prefer long-winded and intellectually stimulating explanations, some people love to listen to poetry and fancy words - there is plenty of that about for them (their mind's) to get lost in. The world is full of such explanations. Perhaps this is why the way of the Master's is so simple - no need for words - just pure experience.

Yehoshua is said to have been born into simple / poor / humble surroundings, and apparently all his chosen Apostles were the same. He did not choose great orators and intellectuals to represent him. There is also a story of Moses being a poor speaker, so he used Aaron to speak on his behalf (see Exodus 4:10-16).

This is simply how I see things, and how I explain my experiences ~ simply.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy

The scriptures are an allegory to me, however since you apply them in the manner that you do, it appears that you are not seeing that those outside the house can only bare the very little. That is all they need, since one must increase upon the very little - DEFINITELY - to gain the higher. As a man must be faithful to lesser mystery before he can gain the greater mystery -- faithful in what is least before the greater.

In any case I don't speak to people I encounter in life as I do on the internet on a Gnostic forum. I discern the condition of those I am around, I can feel their vibration and receive impressions. I do things in actions, if they are more types of in that since. Or I say things that can help them were they are at. But I would like to hear your thoughts on this which I quoted. I added this into my edited post.

"There was a
householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or
cattle or dog or pig or corn or barley or chaff or grass or [...] or
meat and acorn. Now he was a sensible fellow, and he knew what the food
of each one was. He served the children bread [...]. He served the
slaves [...] and meal. And he threw barley and chaff and grass to the
cattle. He threw bones to the dogs, and to the pigs he threw acorns and
slop. Compare the disciple of God: if he is a sensible fellow, he understands what discipleship is all about. The
bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of
the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the
world which are in a human form.
When he identifies them, to the
swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and
chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will
give only the elementary lessons, to the children he will give the complete instruction."

Thoughts?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Admin on Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:05 am

The_Passerby wrote:"There was a householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or cattle or dog or pig or corn or barley or chaff or grass or [...] or
meat and acorn. Now he was a sensible fellow, and he knew what the food
of each one was. He served the children bread [...]. He served the
slaves [...] and meal. And he threw barley and chaff and grass to the
cattle. He threw bones to the dogs, and to the pigs he threw acorns and
slop. Compare the disciple of God: if he is a sensible fellow, he understands what discipleship is all about. The
bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of
the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the
world which are in a human form.
When he identifies them, to the
swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and
chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will
give only the elementary lessons, to the children he will give the complete instruction."

Thoughts?
Hi PB

I am not sure how this quote actually fits with what I have been saying, - i.e. about how it is unnecessary (and even unhelpful) to over intellectualize in complicated theological language about gnosis and the mystic experience.

Your quote plainly states that we should give people what they need for life (not necessarily what they desire) and what they are capable of receiving. So yes, obviously, one does not reveal, or even, perhaps, simply talk about the mysteries to those who are not ready. One may speak about only as much as a listener will bare to hear, but in no way is it necessary (imo) to make the message complicated to satisfy intellectual egos. After all, Truth is not complicated, only the mind of man.

To me, "the complete instruction given TO THE CHILDREN" (mentioned in your quote) is not intellectual or in words of human language - it is the actual INITIATION / BAPTISM into the GREAT MYSTERIES.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to explain in this thread.

PLU ~ Bob Very Happy
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 1350
Age : 72
Registration date : 2007-11-05

View user profile http://www.geocities.com/genuine.gnosis/index.html

Back to top Go down

Re: BEYOND WORDS, CONCEPTS, & DUALITIES

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum