nuvoadam

Here is a repost of the original Boehme info which has got Mog's Nog
in a Foggy bog. I am going to ***add some comments here or there.
Moggin -- if you can, see that I have always been Transcendentalistic.
I speak of the Unity, the One, the All and The Way from here to
there, then to now, everything to nothing and all points both
in-between and outside and nowhere never never.

Boehme was a Gnostic who had access to the the C.H. copies being made
public by Bruno and Ficino among several others. At this same time
there were fragements of Gnostic codices long in circulation, but more
frequently beginning to surface. Francis Bacon temporarily quit the
Masons to join the Rosicrucians, thereafter bringing these two Schools
together along with Scientists in the Royal Society.

This post led into a Boehme quote which Moggin felt to paint Boehme as
being a rah rah man for the Demiurge. This despite having many
conversations with Dick about how Boehme was very much a Gnostic, only
perhaps not by Moggin' particular definition of what this signified.


http://tinyurl.com/nqdd

(snip)

There was a time of American Transcendentalism where mysticism was
attached to the romantic quest. Walt Whitman heralded this
breakthrough in his poem "Song of Myself" wherein he states "Divine am
I inside and out, and I make holy whatever I touch or am touched
from."

At the roughly the same time his fellow Transcendentalist, Thoreau,
said that he had read a Vendantist "Hindoo Book" which afforded him
illumination into the nature of self and its relationship to the
divine. In "Walden" (pg 67) he quotes "So the Soul, from the
circumstances in which it is placed, mistakes its own character, until
the truth is revealed to it by some holy teacher, and then it knows
itself to be Brahma (God)."

"Think things out for yourself, and you will not go astray."
~~~Hermetica Corpus XI. ii fin

The Hermetics did not believe that every soul was endowed with Nous
(intelligence).

***This was not to say that intelligence/mind/Nous could not be
endowed within everyone, just that there were only a few individuals
at a time who were becoming a true Gnostic Master.

"Now the human soul -- not indeed every human soul -- but the pious
soul, is daemonic and divine And such a soul when it has run the race
of piety becomes mind (Nous) throughout. But the impious soul retains
its own substance unchanged; it suffers self-inflicted punishment, and
seeks an earthly body into which it may enter."
~~~ XII, 19

To listen to the Hermeticist talk of the fate of the self-damned is
revealing. The "vicious souls" are self-condemned to a physical
rebirth experiencing lost memory, ignorance and suffering. But the
pure soul endowed with Nous has experienced the spiritual rebirth.
Nous = mind/intelligence. Tik/Tek = to be reborn/to give birth
to/reborn. Gnos-tic thus can mean 'to become born again through
aquired knowledge), and Gnosis denotes such aquired wisdom.

The Greeks held the inner light to be intelligent, always watchful,
always truthful and usually helpful. One who had met their light was
a Daimon (intellectually born again) who would often manifest godlike
powers afterword. Through Gnosis aka Geo-Nosis they had understood
the disease apparent in the human condition (nosis) everywhere on
earth (geo) and that was ignorance (you are BLIND, Sakle).

***Here is a post I did indicating the Gnostic perspective on such
ignorance and blindness. Even moreso than Jesus, Mary Magdalene (Magda
= Masshiach)depicted the real struggle over self-delusion.
http://tinyurl.com/nqfh

Thereafter the aspirant aquired knowledge until the connection was
made; the mind was endowed with Super-mind, and remembers the
connection to Supra-mind. They had begun the process of Gnosis,,, for
Genesis in most of its bifurcated versions means some aspect of being
born again as God-mind manifest within earth-body (Geo). This was
Gignesthai (to be born)which we may render as Gignosthai (mind
rebirth).

To the Hermetics, the ascent of the soul at the death of the body
leads it through various heavenly zones to its consummation. "This
is the Good; for those who have got GNOSIS...", elsewhere "the Gnosis
of the things that are" (The Shepherd of Men, Corpus Hermetica). Abel
and Hare define Gnosis as "knowledge of God and the relation between
him and the true self." (Hermes Trismegistus: And Investigation of the
Origin of the Hermetic Writings).

Plutarch mentions the original Corpus Hermetica burned along with the
Library of Alexandria during the Cleopatra, Caesar and Antony wars
(around 54 BC). Plutarch, Cicero and Herodotus call Thoth as Hermes,
and Plutarch uses the word DEMIURGOS. He was also called the LOGOS.
In the Corpus, Hellenism influenced by Judaism referrenced the Book of
Genesis, although what libelli this is in I cannot recall. The
Hermetics call the Christians evil and a "deadly enemy" who were
prophecied to eventually sweep over the earth, erasing all traces of
pagonism.

Thoth/Hermes was not to be seen as the Demiurge, but as the SON (-us)
of the Demiurge, hence Demiurg-os. Cicero claims that Hermes left
Egypt and travelled the word trying to get humanity to worship one god
alone, calling this the creative (urge) Demi/deme
(half/not-quite-full/house/dwelling/governor). The word Demi was used
to signify that creation was part of God (Nous/mind), but would not
always see itself as being unified. So by forcing (deme) half (demi)
of itself into a Cosmos, the Cosmocrator seperates Self from self by
the veil of ignorance.

The Alexandrian Hermetics developed under Ptolemy a new religion being
an amalgamation of many others, particularily of Egyptian, Greek and
Jewish. The Serapis cult was actually called by its full title as the
'Serapis and Sophia' cult, if I may be so bold as to call it a cult.
Sophia was Isis was "The Mother" Mary was Demeter (De/The
Mater/Mother) was Io was Ino was Asherah was Sophia.

The Judaism influenced by Hellenism became a new branch of Jewish
Mysticism. Kabbalistic thought modified to include the
Abraxas/Abrasax figure in Adam the Kadmon (God-man), a Shiva/Shakti
like figure whose mind encompasses the entire Cosmos. Meanwhile the
Syrian School was pumping out Hellenized Jewish Gnostics by the year.
Old apocrypha was used as source material for new Gnostical writings.
Plotinus introduced the word Hypostasis and Paul or Gamaliel or
Dositheus borrowed it to write new myths based upon the old.

The book of Norea is mentioned in one text, Zoroastarian angeology in
another. Jesus and the Essenes called the Pharisaic Gnostical groups
as the "Sons of Darkness", meaning they were ignorant to their real
relationship with God.

In a later poste, I would like to explore the schizm in Qumran as
representing the two competing schools of Gnostical thought--
Alexandria and Antioch. I will also explore Jesus extent quips
towards the Pharisee camp, and how he viewed them as manipulative
deity fallen from grace. I would also like to toch once again on the
Hermetic aspect to these political machinations, because I firmly
believe that the Copts were right in the middle of the action as a
mediating influence. Like Jesus and the Great Seth, the Copts saw
both self and Self as being two aspects of one thing: Mind.

***I have not done this yet but am inching closer. I think this issue
of the schizm between Jesus and the Pharisees is very important
because it was the anger he instilled by his rough treatment of them
which was the birth of this other kind of Gnosticism in the west-- one
which built upon pseudepigraphal texts mostly produced around the time
of Philo to turn much of the pre-existing Gnostic Theocracy on it's
head. Protagonists became antagonists, someone flashed someone else
the finger and a BA, a water baloon or three was tossed and here we
still are. Word of advice to Jesus-- don't antagonize the condemned.

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in
each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."
~~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


***All additions are from the Corpus Hermetica quote provided in full
at the end.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jacob Böhme was a mystic and a famous gnostic who in 1641 produced the
"Dialogues on the Supersensual Life." Here he sums up what for him
are the principle questions and thus quests of Gnosticism:

***I'm not sure If I'm right here. Now that I think of it, like
several famous philosophers, Boehme's teachings were transcribed by
one of his admirers, and I'm not sure if this Dialogue can't be
numbered among this work. I believe Jacob was a shoe-maker. Like
Ammonius Saccus and Lao Tzu, real salt-of-the-earth kinda guy.

'The pupil spoke to the master: How can I attain the metaphysical life
so that I can see God and hear him speak.

The master answers: Raise yourself to the level on which no being
lives, then you will hear God speak.

***"Increase thyself to immeasurable height, leaping clear of all
body, and
surmounting all time, become eternal and thou shalt know God."

The pupil: Is that level near or far?

***"Become higher than all height and lower than all depth, to be
everything at the same time in earth and sea and heaven."

The master answers: It is within you. If you can suppress your will
and your senses for one hour you will hear the indescribable words of
God.

***"Think that thou art as yet begotten, that thou art in the womb,
that thou art young, that thou art old, that thou hast died and art
beyond death; perceive all these things together, and thou shalt know
God."

Pupil: How will I be able to hear if my will and my senses are
suppressed?

The master answers: If your personality's senses and will are silent
eternal hearing, seeing and speaking will be revealed within you. God
will hear and see you. Your own hearing, desire and seeing stops you
from seeing and hearing God.

***"But if thou shuttest up thy soul in thy body, and abasest thyself
and sayest, 'I know nothing, I can do nothing, I am afraid of earth
and sea, I cannot mount to heaven, I know not what I was or what I
shall be, then what hast thou to do with God?"

The pupil: How shall I hear and see God if he is a supernatural being?

The master answers: If you sit quietly you are what God was before
nature and creation. And that from which he created you as a natural
being. Then you will hear and see with those faculties with which God
saw and heard in you before your own desire, seeing and hearing began
to work.

The pupil: What is stopping me from reaching that state?

The master answers: Your own desires, hearing and seeing and the fact
that you are in conflict with that from which you originated. You
break away
from God's will with your own will and with your seeing you only see
what you yourself are. Your will blocks your hearing with the
obstinacy of worldly and natural things. It will bring down and
overshadow you with your desires to stop you from reaching the
supernatural and the metaphysical.'

(end snip)

***all of these additions provided from the Hermetic Gnostics:

"Increase thyself to immeasurable height, leaping clear of all body,
and
surmounting all time, become eternal and thou shalt know God. There is
nothing impossible to thyself. Deem thyself immortal and able to do
all
things. Become higher than all height and lower than all depth, to be
everything at the same time in earth and sea and heaven. Think that
thou art
as yet begotten, that thou art in the womb, that thou art young, that
thou
art old, that thou hast died and art beyond death; perceive all these
things
together, and thou shalt know God. But if thou shuttest up thy soul in
thy
body, and abasest thyself and sayest, 'I know nothing, I can do
nothing, I
am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven, I know not what
I was
or what I shall be, then what hast thou to do with God?"

(Corpus Hermeticum xi, ii)

Now, about the offending passage:

Question: How shall I hear and see God if he is a supernatural being?

Translation: The Questioner still divides self (his ego) from SELF
(God).

Answer: If you sit quietly you are what God was before
nature and creation. And that from which he created you as a natural
being. Then you will hear and see with those faculties with which God
saw and heard in you before your own desire, seeing and hearing began
to work.

***Translation: When the Questioner properly meditates for one hour,
part of their Nous is born again (Noustik) into the Mental Realm,
which exists outside of space-time and can be said to exist before
there ever was a creation. Boehme speaks of dualistic matter-bondage
as the 'House of Death'. On one hand he is differentiating between the
seeker and the Creator, alluding to the descent and rise of Nous which
Plotinus called the Monadic Arc and the Hypostasis.

On the other hand he is telling the seeker that the way back to Unity
is to realize that they were themselves the God which existed prior to
dualistic ignorance. We are all self-created. We shall see the
suffering of reincarnation as bondage in the House of Death. The end
of suffering is the end of willfull striving against any other being
in the outside world. We must end the outer Jihad and begin the inner
Jihad to conquor our own ego! Only the pure at heart, with no guile,
as "innocent as a dove" (Jesus) shall walk through the Gates of
Forgiveness to experience Unity of self with SELF.

Question: What is stopping me from reaching that state?

***Translation: the Questioner recognizes that this Unity is a "state"
of Neti Neti (no two things) rather than Eti Eti (this and that).
What is really hindering the seeker from this Samadhi Unity with the
All and the One?

Answer: Your own desires, hearing and seeing and the fact
that you are in conflict with that from which you originated. You
break away
from God's will with your own will and with your seeing you only see
what you yourself are. Your will blocks your hearing with the
obstinacy of worldly and natural things. It will bring down and
overshadow you with your desires to stop you from reaching the
supernatural and the metaphysical.'

***Translation: By contending with God one fights against themself.
Such struggle does not serve to dissolve but instead bolsters one's
sense of seperation from God. Willfullness is the causality of your
self-suffering, as it manifests in desire-based passions.

Our question: Was there a spiritual world pre-existent to the material
one mentioned by the Western Gnostics? This is the conundrum Moggin
still needs to address.

"But the shadow is something derived from a work existing FROM THE
BEGINNING. So IT IS OBVIOUS that the FIRST WORK EXISTED BEFORE Chaos
came into being."
(On the Origin of the World).

"When all the chosen ones lay aside their animal nature, this light
will withdraw to the realm of its being, and its being will welcome it
because of its fine service." (Jesus: The Book of Thomas)

"The eternal realm you will go to is a COPY of the imperishable
eternal realm" (John citing Jesus: The Secret Book of John)

Boehme was a Neoplatonist. Neoplatonism is about Emenationism. There
were multiple Pleroma's, thus multiple Earths, and Multiple
world-destructions' Multiple re-creations, and everybody just changes
roles now and then. Like the Hindu God who became 3 before emenating
into 33,333 or so, we are only reflections of ourself. It's all just
a fractured Mandela, but here is where Gnosis lays.

The Mandela was never created.
The Mandela was created.
The Mandela was fractured.
The Mandela was reunited.
The Mandela was always united.
The Mandela was never united.
The Mandela was
The Mandela
The Man
The
Th
T
*

The Mandela was/is/will be, all at the same time. I call this the
Time-Star. It is the highest Gnosis of what and who you are. This is
the Truth. The Truth is who and what you were and are and will be.
All at the same time.

"If you sit quietly you are what God was before
nature and creation."

You become your-SELF, and your not-SELF. You are ONE and nothing. The
Alpha-alef in Omega-infinity-egg.

"And that from which he created you as a natural
being."

Self beholds self. Together they behold SELF. You are Trinity.

"Then you will hear and see with those faculties with which God
saw and heard in you before your own desire, seeing and hearing began
to work."

Since you are what God was before Creation, then you are SELF and
Self. GOD and God. This dyad percieves its triune part as you- the
self and still a god. SELF,Self,self. GOD,God,god.
Shiva/Shakti,Vishnu-Brahma,Brahma-Man.
Father/Mother,Pleroma-Demiurge,Demiurge-Man.

The meditative reunion is seeing your self from here and there and
everywhere all at once. It is the Eternal NOW. That which was, that
which is, that which will be and that which is not, all experienced in
one moment called the NOW.

The now = the moment around us. Most of cannot even live in this now.
The Now = the moment of our reunion with the Pleroma.
The NOW = the moment of Pleromic reunion with each other.

The NOW = the time when all Heavens reunite. Big dance. Lotsa fun.
You get to meet all your other dopplegangers-- there is Moggin the
Pirate, the Executive, the actress, and the Gnosiologist. There is
Moggin who married that little red-haired girl, and the Moggin whose
life ended early because he stepped in front of a bus, and the
trailer-trash Moggin, and the Moggin who won the Nobel Prize.

There were actually Gnostics who urged the seeker on to Unity not
because of disease, but by an enduring sense of curiosity and
goodness.

"The Stoics believe that a wise man is friend of all other wise men,
whether educated or uneducated. There is nothing more lovable than
goodness and we should love all those throughout the world who have
sought and found goodness."
(Cotta the Stoic)

This unity and love is bliss, but not for the sake of itself. Samadhi
is blissful reunion with the All, and it is this goodness Gnostics
seek, this unity.

For the ONE!

kater moggin

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):

You've always been a net.kook. Or maybe not always -- I'd
have to check back -- but certainly for awhile.

So you like to claim. Of course you throw the word around
so loosely it's meaningless, coming from you.


Nope, I never claimed that Boehme viewed his God as a mere
demiurge. I pointed out that in the quote you gave, he
identifies the Creator of the natural world as God, contrary to
the characteristic gnostic outlook.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

nuvoadam

I don't have to check back to see that we've always had this
difference: you are an academic Gnosiologist who consistently
disregards most interpretations of Gnostic metaphor as being kooky.
Disbelieving that eastern TM techniques were buried in western
metaphor, you sweep aside any possibility that the word Gnostic
signified Jnasi: one whose Nous/Mind was "born again" as Jesus put it.
You offer no interpretation of your own, no practice of your own,
nothing. You have nothing except myths to hang on to! And that is
not only kooky but spooky! I remember when Ephesius stated that,
while he was working on actually awakening, you seemed to have no
understanding of the practice.

I have very specific definitions of Gnostic, Gnosis, Gnosticism, many
of them in accord with certain stances you have affected over the
years.

You felt Dean Edwards was using the word as a "synonym for mysticism".
I remember when Dean first learned that the etymology of the word
Gnostic pointed not just to Greece, or the Germanic Kno, but to the
Sanskrit Jna and Jnasi. That was really where the two of you began
disagreeing with each other right there. For you, Dean (moderator of
soc.religion.gnosis) had become one of us "kooks".

I recognize that the original Western Gnosticism was esoteric
mysticism from its very inception in and around the Library of
Alexandria just after 300 BCE. That statement is not concretistic nor
abstract. I am saying that the original Gnosticism WAS the GODZILLA of
all mysticism! Being birthed at Alexandria, it was an amalgamation of
many different systems into several new ones. VERY "new age"! And
after Ashoka sent his missionaries to Alexandria, it was doubly
reinforced Buddhism as well. Before he sent them, as Josephus states,
the Essense had been around a very long time. The Essenes whom still
today claim they are a branch of Buddhism! The original Gnosticism
was a witches brew of different beliefs, and it took around
three-hundred years for the darker elements of disease to be instilled
in it.

Therefore, while many dictionaries and commentaries correctly
recognize that there were many sects united mainly by dualism alone, I
think it is a reckless error for any single text to state that all
Gnostics were united by a belief in an evil God/Creation. I don't care
how often you states this, it is just not true. That is your own
defintion of Gnosticism and you have been fighting for it for a long
time.

Remember Wynn Manners? She reminded us all that your singular
definition of Gnosticism was your own "fantasy". She noted that
Clement of Alexandria accused the FALSE Gnostics on the basis that HE
WAS A GNOSTIC. She also recognized the Hermetics claim to have
priority on the word.

Wynn Manner:
"If you don't fit *Moggin's* paradigm of what a "Gnostic" is he
insists
you are not a Gnostic at all! i would suggest that his definition
castrates the *gnosis* out of the old "Gnostics" -- & (perhaps)
*tries*
to do the same with the New Gnostics!"

http://tinyurl.com/ns7o

Wynn again:
"Knowledge is neither positive nor negative. It's our *attitude*
towards
the knowledge that is positive or negative. Faith, however, can be
viewed as being positive..."

(snip)
Moggin:


Wynn:

The ones who question it are those who define "Gnostic" within the
anti-demiurgical/demiurge as evil or ignorant Creator paradigm. So
it's
being questioned by those that (i believe) are working within a false
paradigm of "Gnostic" (due to excluding "Gnostics" like Clement of
Alexandria & the authors & followers of some of the Hermetic
tractates,
etc.).
(end snip)

Seems like I'm not the only one telling Moggin that he has this very
narrow view of what Gnosticism is.

Wynn:
(Snip)
This is from WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE Copyright 1994 (a hell of a less weighty book than the 2nd
edition of Webster's Unabridged, for sure!).

"gnostic 1. pertaining to knowledge. 2. possessing knowledge, esp.
esoteric knowledge of spiritual things. 3 (cap) pertaining to or
characteristic of the Gnostics 4 (cap) a member of any of certain
sects
among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of
spiritual things, and explained the world as created by powers or
agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead."

"gnosis knowledge of spiritual things: mystical knowledge."

Jeffery, the author of the article on "Gnosticism" in THE


"It was the church fathers who called them Gnostics, recognizing the
common elements of gnosis characteristic of the systems, however much
they differed from one another in detail. For all of them gnosis
meant
three things:

"(1) It was knowledge as a system of thought, for these teachers
endeavored to provide a coherent explanation of man's life in his
universe and to suggest answers to those perplexing questions of the
origin of the world, the origin of evil, the reason for our feeling as
though we were strangers here, what happens after death, why such
inequalities and seeming injustices beset life, the plan of the ages,
and the way to salvation. Thus in the _Excerpta_ex_Theodoto,_ 78, we
read that gnosis is 'knowledge of who we were, what we have become,
where we were, into what place we have been set, wither we are
hastening, from what we are redeemed, what birth is and what rebirth.'

"(2) It was also revelation, for the knowledge imparted was not
knowledge that man could acquire for himself, but knowledge
supernaturally given and privately imparted to privileged souls
capable
of receiving it. The Hermetic treatises, for example, have the form
of
secret instructions given by Hermes to his 'son' Tat, and the
_Apocryphon_Johannis_ is esoteric instructions given by Christ to John
on the Mount of Olives, which he is bidden to write but to reveal only
to such as are worthy. In part these 'revelations' dealt with matters
of cosmology (the universe), soteriology (salvation), and eschatology
(the hereafter), but partly they were concerned with occult lore,
charms, spells, magic names, and numbers, such as were later used in
the
well-known Gnostic gems.

"(3) But is was also experience. The Gnostic _knew_ because he had
had
an experience of God whereby he was delivered from his fears, his
doubts, his uncertainties, and was assured of salvation. He had been
awakened by the gnosis, knew what he was, whence he had come, and the
path which he must follow to return to his home."

pg. 735 Vol. XII

WHATEVER OUR DIVERGENCIES IN OPINION & INTERPRETATION MAY BE -- THE
ABOVE MAY PROVIDE COMMON GROUND FOR MOST OF US.
(end snip)

Wynn, where are you now? When I accuse Moggin of being an academic
GNOSIOLOGIST, what would you say?

Wynn:
(snip)
"Moggin's definition of "gnosis" & "gnostic" IS OF VALUE -- within the
restrictive scholarly sense. But it's exclusively for scholars
talking
to other scholars -- & is irrelevant to 99.9% of humanity. Genuine
*gnosis*, however, is relevant to *everyone* who awakens *into* it!
And
a century from now Moggin's definition will be but one definition of
--
perhaps more than a dozen -- & most likely will be the most *minor*
definition of all!

"i'm for the Living *Gnosis* itself -- that which BLOWS the mind out
of
the limited parameters of the old mindmaps. & those limited &
limiting
mindmaps are *not* the Territory that the Word, *gnosis* is pointing
towards.

"Spiritual evolution comes thru the *gnosis* that experiences the
Living
Territory -- the *knowing* that evolves the conscious awareness--
*beyond* all "knowledge".

"Moggin's definition is an *exquisite* fossil -- a model of scholarly
perfection, in its way -- & belongs on display with ancient dinosaur
bones & the original Procrustean Bed.

"The Living *Gnosis* will pay it no heed -- & will continue to unveil
(as
best the ineptitude of mental-based words *can* reveal the *suchness*
of
Ultimate Being & Becoming) -- the hitherto Unrevealed & Unknown.

"But the Major Works of *Gnosis* -- in the future -- will probably
*not*
(in largest part) be coming thru people who consider themselves to be
"Gnostics" -- for sure! There's something imitative -- in considering
oneself a "Gnostic" -- that tends to fall short of being
*innovative*!"
(end snip)

Moggin wears two hats when it comes to defining Gnosticism. When he
wants he will switch to the more inclusive:

"Gnosis" refers to the "intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an
esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics" according to
the American Heritage. Ditto Merriam-Webster: "esoteric
knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be
essential to salvation." Notice those definitions link the
word "gnosis" to the gnostics, specifically, i.e. to "adherents
of gnosticism" (MW), not any random mystics."

But then when he wants he will also claim that all Gnostics were
characterized by a belief in an evil world creator, and furthermore
most of them believed there was this dramatic big finish. The ones
that didn't believe the Creator dies along with his creation,
generously allow for the Demiurge to continue living, forever exiled
from Heaven. This is not Gnosticism, but as Wynn pointed out, Moggin
is welcome to his "fantasy".

nuvoadam

Had to edit this again; it was pretty mangled. Repost the Repartee to
the Repartee to the Repost!


I don't have to check back to see that we've always had this
difference: you are an academic Gnosiologist who consistently
disregards most interpretations of Gnostic metaphor as being kooky.
Disbelieving that eastern TM techniques were buried in western
metaphor, you sweep aside any possibility that the word Gnostic
signified Jnasi: one whose Nous/Mind was "born again" as Jesus put it.
You offer no interpretation of your own, no practice of your own,
nothing. You have nothing except myths to hang on to! And that is
not only kooky but spooky! I remember when Ephesius stated that,
while he was working on actually awakening, you seemed to have no
understanding of the practice.

I have very specific definitions of Gnostic, Gnosis, Gnosticism, and
many
of them in accord with certain stances you have affected over the
years.

You felt Dean Edwards was using the word as a "synonym for mysticism".
I remember when Dean first learned that the etymology of the word
Gnostic pointed not just to Greece, or the Germanic Kno, but to the
Sanskrit Jna and Jnasi. That was really where the two of you began
disagreeing with each other right there. For you, Dean (moderator of
soc.religion.gnosis) had become one of us "kooks".

I recognize that the original Western Gnosticism was esoteric
mysticism from its very inception in and around the Library of
Alexandria just after 300 BCE. That statement is not concretistic nor
abstract. I am saying that the original Gnosticism WAS the GODZILLA of
all mysticism! Being birthed at Alexandria, it was an amalgamation of
many different systems into several new ones. VERY "new age"! And
after Ashoka sent his missionaries to Alexandria, it was doubly
reinforced Buddhism as well. Before he sent them, as Josephus states,
the Essenes had been around a very long time. The Essenes whom still
today claim they are a branch of Buddhism! The original Gnosticism
was a witches brew of different beliefs, and it took around
three-hundred years for the darker elements of disease to be instilled
in it.

Therefore, while many dictionaries and commentaries correctly
recognize that there were many sects united mainly by dualism alone, I
think it is a reckless error for any single text to state that all
Gnostics were united by a belief in an evil God/Creation. I don't care
how often you state this, it is just not true. That is your own
definition of Gnosticism and you have been fighting for it for a long
time.

Remember Wynn Manners? She reminded us all that your singular
definition of Gnosticism was your own "fantasy". She noted that
Clement of Alexandria accused the FALSE Gnostics on the basis that HE
WAS A GNOSTIC. She also recognized the Hermetics claim to have
priority on the word.

Wynn Manner:
"If you don't fit *Moggin's* paradigm of what a "Gnostic" is he
insists you are not a Gnostic at all! i would suggest that his
definition castrates the *gnosis* out of the old "Gnostics" -- &
(perhaps)
*tries* to do the same with the New Gnostics!"

http://tinyurl.com/ns7o

Wynn again:
"Knowledge is neither positive nor negative. It's our *attitude*
towards the knowledge that is positive or negative. Faith, however,
can be viewed as being positive..."

(snip)
Moggin:


Wynn:

The ones who question it are those who define "Gnostic" within the
anti-demiurgical/demiurge as evil or ignorant Creator paradigm. So
it's being questioned by those that (i believe) are working within a
false paradigm of "Gnostic" (due to excluding "Gnostics" like Clement
of Alexandria & the authors & followers of some of the Hermetic
tractates,etc.).
(end snip)

Seems like I'm not the only one telling Moggin that he has this very
narrow view of what Gnosticism is.

Wynn:
(Snip)
This is from WEBSTER'S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE Copyright 1994 (a hell of a less weighty book than
the 2nd edition of Webster's Unabridged, for sure!).

"gnostic 1. pertaining to knowledge. 2. possessing knowledge, esp.
esoteric knowledge of spiritual things. 3 (cap) pertaining to or
characteristic of the Gnostics 4 (cap) a member of any of certain
sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior
knowledge
of spiritual things, and explained the world as created by powers or
agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead."

"gnosis knowledge of spiritual things: mystical knowledge."

Jeffery, the author of the article on "Gnosticism" in THE


"It was the church fathers who called them Gnostics, recognizing the
common elements of gnosis characteristic of the systems, however much
they differed from one another in detail. For all of them gnosis
meant three things:

"(1) It was knowledge as a system of thought, for these teachers
endeavored to provide a coherent explanation of man's life in his
universe and to suggest answers to those perplexing questions of the
origin of the world, the origin of evil, the reason for our feeling as
though we were strangers here, what happens after death, why such
inequalities and seeming injustices beset life, the plan of the ages,
and the way to salvation. Thus in the _Excerpta_ex_Theodoto,_ 78, we
read that gnosis is 'knowledge of who we were, what we have become,
where we were, into what place we have been set, wither we are
hastening, from what we are redeemed, what birth is and what rebirth.'

"(2) It was also revelation, for the knowledge imparted was not
knowledge that man could acquire for himself, but knowledge
supernaturally given and privately imparted to privileged souls
capable of receiving it. The Hermetic treatises, for example, have
the
form of secret instructions given by Hermes to his 'son' Tat, and the
_Apocryphon_Johannis_ is esoteric instructions given by Christ to John
on the Mount of Olives, which he is bidden to write but to reveal only
to such as are worthy. In part these 'revelations' dealt with matters
of cosmology (the universe), soteriology (salvation), and eschatology
(the hereafter), but partly they were concerned with occult lore,
charms, spells, magic names, and numbers, such as were later used in
the well-known Gnostic gems.

"(3) But is was also experience. The Gnostic _knew_ because he had
had an experience of God whereby he was delivered from his fears, his
doubts, his uncertainties, and was assured of salvation. He had been
awakened by the gnosis, knew what he was, whence he had come, and the
path which he must follow to return to his home."

pg. 735 Vol. XII

WHATEVER OUR DIVERGENCIES IN OPINION & INTERPRETATION MAY BE -- THE
ABOVE MAY PROVIDE COMMON GROUND FOR MOST OF US.
(end snip)

Wynn, where are you now? When I accuse Moggin of being an academic
GNOSIOLOGIST, what would you say?

Wynn:
(snip)
"Moggin's definition of "gnosis" & "gnostic" IS OF VALUE -- within the
restrictive scholarly sense. But it's exclusively for scholars
talking to other scholars -- & is irrelevant to 99.9% of humanity.
Genuine *gnosis*, however, is relevant to *everyone* who awakens
*into*
it! And a century from now Moggin's definition will be but one
definition
of perhaps more than a dozen -- & most likely will be the most *minor*
definition of all!

"i'm for the Living *Gnosis* itself -- that which BLOWS the mind out
of the limited parameters of the old mindmaps. & those limited &
limiting mindmaps are *not* the Territory that the Word, *gnosis* is
pointing towards.

"Spiritual evolution comes thru the *gnosis* that experiences the
Living Territory -- the *knowing* that evolves the conscious
awareness--
*beyond* all "knowledge".

"Moggin's definition is an *exquisite* fossil -- a model of scholarly
perfection, in its way -- & belongs on display with ancient dinosaur
bones & the original Procrustean Bed.

"The Living *Gnosis* will pay it no heed -- & will continue to unveil
(as best the ineptitude of mental-based words *can* reveal the
*suchness*
of Ultimate Being & Becoming) -- the hitherto Unrevealed & Unknown.

"But the Major Works of *Gnosis* -- in the future -- will probably
*not* (in largest part) be coming thru people who consider themselves
to be "Gnostics" -- for sure! There's something imitative -- in
considering oneself a "Gnostic" -- that tends to fall short of being
*innovative*!"
(end snip)

Moggin wears two hats when it comes to defining Gnosticism. When he
wants he will switch to the more inclusive:

"Gnosis" refers to the "intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an
esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics" according to
the American Heritage. Ditto Merriam-Webster: "esoteric
knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be
essential to salvation." Notice those definitions link the
word "gnosis" to the gnostics, specifically, i.e. to "adherents
of gnosticism" (MW), not any random mystics."

But then when he wants he will also claim that all Gnostics were
characterized by a belief in an evil world creator, and furthermore
most of them believed there was this dramatic big finish. The ones
that didn't believe the Creator dies along with his creation,
generously allow for the Demiurge to continue living, forever exiled
from Heaven. This is not Gnosticism, but as Wynn pointed out, Moggin
is welcome to his "fantasy".

kater moggin

Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:


Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):


I can agree that you've been a net.kook for a pretty long
time.

You're making shit up, just like you always do: sometimes
about me, sometimes about others.

You spend most of your time here offering kooky assertions
about history.


You're lying again. I've given readings of the scriptures
countless times.

I pointed out that he didn't pay much attention to his own
FAQ, where he explained that gnosticism was _not_ merely a
synonym for mysticism. It refers to the thinking, history, and
practices of the gnostics, in specific.

You fail to support your assertion with evidence. Same as
usual with you.

Yep. Wynn wanted "gnosis," "gnostic," and "gnosticism" to
be generic terms, i.e., synonymns for "mystical" and
"mysticism," but never was able to explain why those words were
defective.


Google says you're lying again. The "interesting fantasy"
was that this world was made by an evil demiurge. Wynne
admitted my definition "_is_ held by _lots_ of scholars." Once
again you've shown your basic dishonesty.

Of course he did. Clement of Alexandria tried to take the
name "gnostic" away from the gnostics and attach it to his
brand of Christian orthodoxy. If he'd succeeded, it would have
a different meaning nowadays. But so happens that the term
stuck to the gnostics, rather than their proto-orthodox enemies.

Still zero evidence for your notion. You've been peddling
that one for years.

More evidenceless claims. What's wrong, NA? Can't you do
your own bullshitting anymore?

Moggin:


Still true. Thomas may or then again may not not offer an
example of gnostic literature.

Wynn:


If you slap the name "gnostic" onto any mystical ramblings
that suit your fancy, then Thomas qualfies as easily as
anything else in the world. But that ain't what the word means.


I agree you make very unoriginal mistakes. I use the term
gnosticism in a fairly liberal way. A strict use would
confine it to those folks in antiquity who called themselves by
the name "gnostic." A wider use of the word would include
others from that time who were discussed under the same heading
by their contemporaries. I don't argue for either of those
limits: I'm willing to extend the term to those in later times
with an outlook basically similar to the ancient gnostics.'
The Cathars, Bogomols, and Frankists, for example. A broad use
of the word.

Wynn:

I see you've avoided quoting Larry's reply. He said, "The
dictionary fails to mention that these 'certain sects' also
claimed that the creator was evil; that _was_ the
"superior knowledge.'" He also argued it was foolish to depend
on general reference works to give fully accurate info
concerning specialized subjects like gnosticism. Possibly Wynn
had nothing better to use.


Sure. But Wynn didn't think about _why_. It's acceptable
merely because Jeffery doesn't go into detail. If he
explained, say, that the Gnostics separated the Creator of this
world from the true God, the acceptablility-quotient would
have declined sharply for folks like Wynne. The excerpt offers
common ground only because it's vague.

Wynn:

Notice the contradiction: Wynne starts out by
fantasizing about a time in the future, still a hundred years
removed, when the idea that "gnosis" and "gnostic" are
specific to the gnostics' point-of-view has become fossilized.
(Why someone would have that fantasy is a question worth
asking.) Then the fantasy slips into the supposedly
present time, where it becomes a crude lie, since the meaning
of "gnostic" and "gnosis" ain't gone away.


Nuvoadam lies his ass off when he talks about gnosticism
or about me. He's especially fond of making false
accusations when he's in a tight spot. In this case I showed
his chosen dictionary argued against him.

[restoring text]

Nuvoadam:

Moggin:


NA:


[ No reply ]


NA:

Nuvoadam is lying again. I said gnosticism
characteristically divides the Creator of this world from the
true God, not that "all Gnostics were characterized by a
belief in an evil world creator," and I've never said gnostic
myths most often have a big, dramatic finish. Some
certainly do, but I never argued there are more of those than
any others.


That's certainly gnosticism -- it's Valentinus' disciple
Ptolemy, to be specific -- although you misreported the
story in one detail: the demiurge isn't really _exiled_ from
the Pleroma, since he was never there to begin with. He
remains eternally on the outside, even though he survives the
end of this world.


You're again misrepresenting Wynne, who was referring to
the gnostics' idea of an evil demiurge. The both of you
are of course welcome to label that a fantasy, but it remains
one of gnosticism's central themes.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

nuvoadam

Translation: While Moggin has no personal path towards enlightenment,
the minute anyone else offers Gnosis based upon the tenets of Western
Gnosticism, rather than offer up his own ideas, he is going to use his
standard zinger: "net.kook" .


You agree with your misconceptions an awful lot.

No for real. You are an academic Gnosiologist. You study all these
various isms, but do not put any of their teachings into practice.
You are Old School Western Gnostic: You will wait until your death,
then try and say your magic words to get the Archons guarding the
Gates of Forgiveness to open-sez-Moggin! And it won't work. Like
Jesus said, you gotta die before you die. And that is meditation
bubba. And those Gates will not open if you are still scapegoating
anyone else for your own self-suffering. YOU ARE GOD!!! You only
seek reunion with yourself. You only attack yourself when disparaging
the Demiurge! ETc. etc. etc. AND etc.

Lately it seems that I spend most of my time trying to get you to
treat everyone around you with a modicum of kindness, rather than your
typical nasty vitriol.


You parrot. You don't practice. Polly wanna cracker?

Yes but Dean did not share your narrow view of what denoted a Gnostic,
which meant that ever after you felt justified in depicting him using
the word strictly as a "synonym for mysticism".

You have failed to supply a shred of evidence that all Gnostics hated
the Demiurge. Same as usual. What do you think the word hersesy
means? Clement and Origen called themselves as Gnostics. They claimed
these haters had schizmed, not from Christianity, but from real Gnosticism.

She never bowed to your Mogginistic need to force her explaination of
something she had never said in the first place (those words) 'were
defective'. She merely pointed out many times that you had this
"castrated" and "fossilized" and "narrow" understanding of the words,
and that history would one day look back on this era in recognition
that your narrow interpretations of Gnosticism were not correct.


Your "fantasy" was that all Gnostics believed in this nonsense.


Wynn was among those who said that Clement was accusing these others
of having "tried to take away the name" from the original Gnostics.
Like Origen, Clement called himself a Gnostic. You claim otherwise but
have never backed up your interpretive assumptions with any data.

(If he'd succeeded, it would have)

(Typical Moggistic Yadda Yadda)

Well mabe I'm subconsciously jealous that you are so good at doing
all the bullshitting on everyones behalf. Mabe I want you to stop
bullshitting in the name of others, like Clement and Hippolytus for
example, and stick to doing your own bullshitting.

The point Wynn was making was that you tend to "slap the name" Gnostic
on ony the hate-based systems who came along later than the original
Gnostics. Apparently for you, only the "mystic ramblings" of these
Johnny-come-latelies apply for Gnosticism. They are haters, and when
it comes to the definition of Gnostic-- "that aint what the word means".


You wear two hats. You can slap one on when you want to be more
inclusive of others Gnosticism, but then you take to claiming all
Gnostics had this disease towards the World-Creator, you reveal the
wolf under the sheep's clothing. In no way is this inclusive or
"liberal". And I don't give a krap about any tenuous usage of word
"characterise" you might be clinging to. Often you don't even use this out!

That was Larry's own opinion he was interjecting, which is why the
"dictionary fails to mention it". Let's leave Larry's interpretation
of the Dictionaries "failure" out of this.

(He also argued it was foolish to depend)

Letting Larry do your "bullshitting" for you Muggles? Perhaps you
should take his advice then, and stop depending on general referenced
works to give "fully acurate info" concerning Gnosticism. Since, like
myself, you do seem to likea good Dictionary. You'll hopefully parden
me if I don't rush out and buy the 'Dictionary according to Muggins
and Larry' any time soon.


Right. If Jeffery had bought into the interpetations of hucksters like
you then he would have explained your opinion. He didn't, so you are
going to whine-- (the acceptablility-quotient would)

Translation: If Jeffery had spun the same bullshit Moggin does, then
the "acceptability-quotient" for Muggles narrow BS view on what a
Gnostic is wouldn't be in declination.

The excerpt offers common ground because Jeffery is not going to be
your instrument for the continual propagation of your singularly
stifling view of Gnosticis. Not "liberal", but stifling. And diseased.

What I notice is your old patented Mogginism-- you think that by slyly
suggesting that all Gnostics believe as you do that this makes it
true. Wynn is informing you that you and your views will be on display
in the Gnostic Museum, to be strung up as the great fossilized
Tiberius-Mogginus-Rex! ROOOAAAARRR!!!! Imagine his caustic wit, the
subterfuge he used to attack his intended victims!

NA:
Just as Wynn does here, and you yourself have often done, I choose my
own Dictionary. It has nothing to state about your narrow views.

(From the American Heritage Dictionary)

Gnostic: Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual
Gnosis.

Gnosticism: The doctrines of certain early Christian sects that valued
inquiry into spiritual truth above faith, thought salvation attainable
only by the few whose faith enabled them to transcend matter, and
viewed Christ as non-corporeal.

Moggin:


[ No reply ]

Same thing. Sir, you make no distinctions between Gnostics who didn't
have disease for their platform. Ape:


Krag:
You've dogmatically defined the term 'gnosticism' many times
and always yyou use the term to refer to *all* gnostics, not
*some* gnostics as you would have us believe. This isn't the
first time you've made this claim. You made it a few weeks
back when we had this same debate. Evidently this is just
another blindspot or bias in your already shoddy scholarship.

Oh that's right, you have recently taken to _again_ adding the word
"characteristic" more frequently to your personal definition.

Characteristic: Pertaining to, indicating, or constituting a
distinctive character, quality, or dispostion.

I've been warning you for years that you speak of all Gnostics. You
do this a lot. Try not to use the word "characteristic" to lump all
Gnostics together, even using the denotation of 'typical'. You do tend
to make these sweeping definitions of what defined all Gnostics,
without making any disctinctions that no all Gnostics believed in the
Good-God/Evil-God platform.

Moggin:

Moggin:

You are your own worst enema.

kater moggin

Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:


Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):

False translation, since your net.kookery is no comment on
anyone else's enlightenment or lack of same.

NA:

Moggin:


NA:

You really do make shit up. Sometimes you invent personal
details, as in here case here, but that's only one of many
examples. Just recently you assigned Hippolytus claims that he
doesn't make and attached an opinion to me that was exactly
the reverse of the one I'd offered; you even pretended you were
giving an honest quote.

No, it doesn't seem that way at all. You've been spitting
at PL and Cerinthus rather than asking me to handle them
kindly, and you've complained loudly when I've pointed out some
of your bull.

Moggin:


NA:

Now _there's_ parroting. Obviously you described your own
condition.

I have a broad view, of course. Dean didn't share his own
opinion, as I mentioned to him, since he ignored what he'd

You're lying again. I did the opposite: i pointed out he
didn't use the word gnosticism "strictly as a 'synonym for
mysticism,'" since he said the words were not synonymous in his
FAQ. NA:


Never said that they did. You're simply trying to duck my
point that you didn't give any evidence for your claim
concerning the supposedly original gnostics you mentioned above.


What's your evidence Origen called himself a gnostic? The
last time I asked, you didn't have any.


Another of your evidenceless assertions. You got millions
of 'em. Moggin:


Who said anything about bowing? I noted Wynn wanted words
like "gnostic" and "gnosticism" to become generic terms --
i.e., synonyms for "mystical" and "mysticism" -- but was unable
to explain what was wrong with using "mystical" to mean
"mystical" and "mysticism" to mean "mysticism." Perfectly good
words, it seems to me.

False. Wynn tossed lots of insults, but never backed them
up with anything aside from more of the same. "Fossilized" --
for example -- started as a fantasy about how things might have
changed a hundred years in the future, then turned into
bullshit about the way they are nowadays. And you can't do any
better than repeat the same imaginings. NA:


There you go running away again. The fantasy here, or the
lie, plain and simple, is yours: you falsely claimed I
had presented "a singular definition of Gnosticism" that was my
fantasy, according to Wynn. In fact Wynne said the very
opposite by admitting that my understanding "_is_ held by _lots_
of scholars." Moggin:


You've still offered precisely no evidence for your notion.


Not unless Origen called himself a gnostic. Another claim
you've failed to back up. Moggin:

Wynn claimed the Gospel of Thomas was a gnostic text. And
maybe it is. Or maybe not, of course. If you're willing to
label anything with a mystical ring "gnostic," then Thomas fits
without any question. But again, that isn't the word's
meaning; and like the canonical Gospels, Thomas is an ambiguous piece of writing.


You're assuming what you failed to show, that the gnostics
came late and replaced the original model. NA:


No, that's you: you compared the gnostics and their ideas
to cancer, a fatal disease, because you were so offended by
their criticism of the Creator of this world. Strange that you
would attribute your analogy to me.


More of your nonsense, since I never claimed to be a sheep.


Of course it is. My use of the term "gnosticism" is broad
in exactly the way I described. I see you conveniently
deleted what I had to say -- the only thing you could do, since
you didn't have any reply.

No, you clearly do give a crap, since you took the trouble
of misquoting me. According to you, I said "all Gnostics
were characterized by a belief in an evil world creator," which
in fact I never claimed. You also assigned me the notion
"most of them believed there was this dramatic big finish." As
usual, you were just making shit up. Moggin:


Twice-wrong. That was a piece of information missing from
the dictionary entry, and it isn't there because general
purpose dictionaries don't go into much detail (part of Larry's point above).


Offering the other side of the dialogue: the one that you
neglected to quote. Moggin:


None needed. Yes, Jeffery's remarks are widely acceptable
-- because they're vague. Moggin:


Nah, I'm being perfectly straightforward: Wynn's comments
were a fantasy about the future. _Why_ someone would
fantasize about a time when words like "gnosticism" and "gnosis"
had lost their meaning is a question, but that's precisely
what Wynn was doing: imagining a day when they'd become little
or nothing more than generic terms.

Moggin: [restoring text]

False. You replaced the statement I made with one you had
invented, and you wove another out of whole cloth. Two
more examples of your dishonesty. You can't talk without lying
-- at least when gnosticism is the topic.

[fixing attributions]

Moggin: [to Naked_Ape]

Yeah. Naked_Ape was like you in offering naked assertions.


A post where Krag went on the attack after neatly deleting
all of the evidence against him -- evidence from his chosen
example, the Gospel of Truth. He had falsely insisted that the
term "the All," as used in gnosticism, couldn't exclude
anything. Seems he didn't grasp it's a term of art which often
denotes the Aeons taken as a group: not literally anything and
everything. The latter is especially hard to miss in the
Gospel of Truth, which declares the All lacked the Father ("The
entirety was in need of him") and went searching for him
-- 18:34 and 17:4 respectively -- directly contradicting Krag's claim.


Far as I'm concerned, Krag and the mouse in his pocket are
free to believe anything they like. But when he retails
falsehoods, I'm equally free to point them out, as I did in the case here.


Not the first time I'd corrected him on the same item. He
was worse off than the demiurge in Ptolemy's myth, who has
some learning-ability, while Krag seemed to be in love with his
mistakes.

Funny how you say "evidently" w/out supplying any evidence.

Then you've been saying for years I speak for all gnostics.
Nice of you to say so, I guess, but that's certainly not a
claim I make for myself, and it's also not a claim that I think
is true.

Moggin:


Just so. Nice of you to quote me, although I see that you
don't have much to add.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn