--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, I was thinking about the type of > > > > > Gnosticism that denounces the world as > > > > > evil, an abortion created by a monstrously > > > > > incompetent and malevolent lesser deity. > > > > > > > > "The world is as you are..."- That Same Guy > > > > > > Gee, thanks, Jim. > > > > That Same Guy = Maharishi. It is a literal truth is it not that > > the world is a perfect reflection of us; we create the world we > > perceive? Or are our perceptions of the world not ours? And if > > not ours, whose are they? > > I think that this bit of obvious truth may be perceived > as falling into the category of an insensitive liberated > person hurting the feelings of persons in ignorance. :-)
But only if you completely ignore the context in the interests of coming up with yet another putdown. I was not, of course, espousing Gnosticism. > It would have been more "polite" not to point out that > the Gnostic position in this regard is little more than > sour grapes and the petulance of a child who hasn't > gotten what he wanted out of life. Says Barry, impolitely pointing out something that Jim certainly did not, i.e., Barry's personal (mis)interpretation of the Gnostic position. (Actual substance follows.) > As has been pointed > out by many scholars, this aspect of the Dualist philos- > does not exaclty represent the highest aspects of human > thinking. It';s like their position was, "We can't deal with > both suffering and a benevolent God at the same time, > so our solution is to take God out of the equation and > propose a world made by Satan/the demiurge." The so-called problem of suffering has been something religions have struggled with ever since the emergence of the concept of a wholly benificent deity. There have been many proposed solutions, none of them entirely satisfactory on the level of intellect. The *real* Gnostic solution, as it happens, has a good deal in common with much of Eastern philosophy > I think your point is very perceptive, Jim. Some people, > faced with a world in which suffering exists and one > doesn't always get what one wants, come up with a > philosophy or religion that emphasizes compassion > and understanding and patience. Others, faced with > the same world, come up with a philosophy/religion > that says that the fact that suffering exists and we don't > get what we want is due to a malevolent deity fucking > with us. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. And the Gnostic solution involves a "way out" for those who find compassion and understanding and patience not wholly effective in and of themselves, given the way the deck appears to be stacked. In that respect it resembles the philosophy/ metaphysics behind TM/Yoga. The "way out" proposed by TM is a lot simpler, but it achieves much the same end: to become identified with Wholeness instead of identifying with the world's manifold imperfections. As I said in a previous post, of which Barry has failed to take account, I would be inclined toward Gnosticism *if it weren't for TM*. > "The world is as you are" quote has *never* > been more apt than when describing the Gnostics. However, it leaves unanswered the question of whether we in some sense stand outside the world and create it by our perceptions, or whether we have been created in the same mold as the world and therefore perceive it as it is. These are obviously mutually exclusive propositions; but on the face of it, neither trumps the other. It takes more than mere assertion to decide which is correct. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
