Tribe.net. Local Connections Luke http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#c942ef08-b1a0-47b7-bb4f-6a230f922f15 2006-12-15T00:00:35Z 2006-12-15T00:00:35Z

Many people in the world as well as in the Gnostic community have a very hard time understanding the deeper metaphysical and psycho spiritual experiences in the Gnostic text. What many traditional spiritual explorers in today’s world do not really understand is the relationship the natural world has to the human mind and the spiritual planes of existence. The Gnostics knew this, they new this very well. This ancient secret is slowly starting to reemerge in our modern western world. Very soon the great insights and answer into this amazing age-old secret will soon be reviled. I am here to tell you to be ready for when it comes. God bless

Luke 2006-12-15T00:00:35Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#d7a4cb38-6b58-4e5a-8808-78a6513c8bd5 2006-09-20T02:21:38Z 2006-09-20T02:21:38Z

Indeed! Your adamance has suggested to me that you have some thoughts about this tree... I have been waiting with baited breath for your post on it... please, proceed! Phillip :-)

Phillip 2006-09-20T02:21:38Z Benjamin http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#00f2e19a-9ec6-40c1-8702-a7aa66011b79 2006-08-05T16:21:28Z 2006-08-05T16:21:28Z

what about the tree of life!!???

Benjamin 2006-08-05T16:21:28Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#e57efcca-04c2-435b-b27f-3a2dce79e4ad 2006-07-07T17:03:04Z 2006-07-07T17:03:04Z

Sometimes the "hidden agenda" is as manipulative as you say, which is sad, for then we have a cult on our hands, not a mystery tradition, but in many cases there is a need for psychic and spiritual preparation... for if there is truly an energetic transmission in such an initiation, then there must be a fit vehicle to receive it, otherwise the energy is wasted on vain pursuits and the "initiation" never becomes unfolded into realization. The aspirant must have established a "Hermetic Seal" on her/his energy. Once this is established, the energy transmitted can unfold the "unbelievable secret", but it is unfolded in the experience of the receiver, any initiation that is received ear to mouth that is not received in the heart and the mind of the one receiving and unfolded in her/his experience has received nothing. That being said, there are real and meaninful purposes for limitations on entrance into mystery schools and initiations, and preparation is the central one I can think of.

Phillip 2006-07-07T17:03:04Z $item.owner.firstName http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#c471110b-1cac-45c0-8fb0-b2d2ac972ca0 2006-07-07T16:56:59Z 2006-07-07T16:56:59Z

Hi Denny, Perhaps I should have qualified my statement a bit further. My experience of Gnosticism has been that it is less concerned with doctrinal conformity than other forms of Christianity when it comes to scriptural reading and interpretation. And yes, hidden agendas are all over the place. But, in general, I think we do a better service by working to reveal our own to ourselves than by trying to expose what we think they may be in others. That's a lesson I've come to appreciate more deeply over the last couple of years. As a case in point, I'm sure you recall that last year I sent you private communication in which I was quite forward in my "analysis" of what I perceived as your possible hidden agenda. At the time I really felt like it was with the best of intentions, but of course those intentions were mixed with my own hidden agenda. (You received it and responded to it graciously.) Whether or not that conversation did you any good, I don't know. But what i do know is that it became a good look in the mirror for me. I think "tricks" like this that we unconsciously play on ourselves are one reason why some traditions/systems use an initiatory system with esoteric twists and turns that can lead one into the disillusionment that none of it was what it appeared to be. To some degree, or perhaps at certain points along the way, it's a mechanism of awakening that simply seems to be necessary for most if not all people. In fact, this whole dynamic is embodied in the Hermes archetype, which, by the way, can be seen at work in the Eden myth. In fact, it could be argued that it manifested in and through the life of Jesus. Peace, Griffin

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-07T16:56:59Z Denny http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#6213fb2b-7170-4969-baf3-ebbf0904f5b8 2006-07-07T14:59:02Z 2006-07-07T14:59:02Z

<< One of the basic aspects of my experience of Gnosticism is that scripture is meant to stimulate introspection, spark the imagination and inspire real change from the inside out. >> Well, this is true of every religion that has a holy book. Gnosticism believes in the power of reading... and so does everybody else. :) I believe some people have hidden agendas. Why do most cults hide their most unbelievable secrets until the initiate has gone through a number of outer circles? Hidden agenda!

Denny 2006-07-07T14:59:02Z $item.owner.firstName http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#e45aab09-f8fc-421c-bd57-65d632b17a16 2006-07-07T12:48:18Z 2006-07-07T12:48:18Z

Hi Carl, Well said. Peace, Griffin

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-07T12:48:18Z Carl http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#8d9357ca-dadd-45e1-b092-dd7f6ed8d510 2006-07-07T06:26:26Z 2006-07-07T06:26:26Z

A side note: When I say something isn't what I would call Gnostic, I don't encessarily mean that as a negative thing, I don't necessarily mean it as a criticism or slam. For me the term 'Gnostic' refers, again, to ancient texts from Nag Hammadi, and the reports of ancient heresy hunters on groups with certain teachings, it is a technical thing for a certain context/tradition/meaning system, certain themes, teachings, and principles that cohere in my own path that are related and connected to these roots. Sure we all develop things with our own insight, and our insights and developments can be better or worse, depending. What we develop on our own may or may not be something quite new or different. New or different need not be bad. But some new and different things may be unhealthy or misguided, too. So it's a mix, a lot of the times. I understand that some would use the word 'Gnostic' more loosely. I try not to use it so loosely, it has meaning for me to make certain distinctions. If such distinctions are not useful to you, I'm still interested in attempting to be clear and/or poetic about what we are trying to communicate, so that something helpful or insightful is communicated, either way. For me, being clearer about what the subject is, can help convey meaning and insight often enough that I think it is important.

Carl 2006-07-07T06:26:26Z Carl http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#b303f86e-37c2-475b-8125-5302a2e4d4a3 2006-07-07T06:17:18Z 2006-07-07T06:17:18Z

My point was simply to state some of my view, not to attack. I refrained from some details of my view that might have been even more likely to be misunderstood. My hope was to avoid misunderstanding, despite the potential. That I do not view everything as equally connected to ancient Gnostic teachings, and that I do not view all teachings as equal, is not a slam against anyone. It happens to be my view, if you disagree well that is your view, I understand disagreement, I would be hideously miserable if I expected others to agree with me all the time, as would anyone. So without devolving into doctrinal dogmatism or sectarian bickering, I think it is possible to state differences of view respectfully. The witholding of ejaculation during intercourse, has been claimed by some such as Sammael Von Weor, to be crucial to their mystical sexual practices and teachings that they call 'gnosis' -- such views can be seen as Tantra-related or can be compared to certain Tantric views, though there are many different forms and foci of Tantra, and sexual Tantra does not define Tantra. I was picking up on that theme. It may sometimes be a difficult balance, but it can be achieved, to discuss actual differences with respect, even with strong disagreement. I don't think doctrinal differences need to be avoided or ignored. I think making distinctions can be a good thing. I don't think this means we have to be distracted from experiential insight, and I don't think it means we have to devolve into disputing doctrines. At some point we could agree to disagree on certain matters.

Carl 2006-07-07T06:17:18Z $item.owner.firstName http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#4ed0826e-fb24-449a-ac54-f4733b809e8b 2006-07-07T02:22:00Z 2006-07-07T02:22:00Z

Jeremiah, You make a good point. Doctrinal argumentation can become a severe distraction. One of the basic aspects of my experience of Gnosticism is that scripture is meant to stimulate introspection, spark the imagination and inspire real change from the inside out. Picking up on another thread, and to risk a little anthropomorphizing, I'd say it's "good news" that God is wise, powerful and graceful enough to understand how human beings can come up with so many different ways to interpret words attributed to Divine inspiration. On the other hand, it is rather funny to watch us human beings be suspicious about the hidden agendas behind each other's views on what scriptures mean. :-) Peace, Griffin

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-07T02:22:00Z Jeremiah http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#dfc7736c-b1f2-4b83-9789-066f8afcd847 2006-07-06T21:42:08Z 2006-07-06T21:42:08Z

What i responded to was the apparent dependence on the written works of others - doctrine. For me arguing of the fine points of written doctine is a very head oriented game that seems to devolve into egoic one upmanship rather than dealing with actual experiential heart centered sharing. If this pod is about who has the right and best gnostic dosctrine then I am in the wrong place. Blessed Be, Jeremiah

Jeremiah 2006-07-06T21:42:08Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#6569c4a2-5bc7-49f3-8612-7210d1e81444 2006-07-06T21:26:45Z 2006-07-06T21:26:45Z

Denny's post stated, "The gnostic sect I was involved in for some time held that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was basically S-E-X (shame, shame, know your name). The snake tempted the woman to eat the fruit of the tree, she enticed the man, they shared in the orgasm, and then were promptly expelled from the garden. Consequently, it was taught that man and woman should never reach the point of orgasm. It was through a process of daily transmutation that men and women were to transform themselves into gods. Not just man or woman alone, of course, but the two of them together in the sexual embrace." That practice is, to my understanding, the same essential practice, whether it is named in the Eastern tradition as "Sexual Tantra" or in my Gnostic tradition, "The Arayot". The name for the practice, in my tradition, however, is not well known, (for conscious reasons), so I usually revert to the name of the practice referred to above by the title everyone knows, when someone brings it up. I read that Carl was responding to that and that you were responding to Carl... sorry if I misunderstood. :-). p

Phillip 2006-07-06T21:26:45Z Jeremiah http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#50b93b04-f42d-4b01-aa03-0694f9b266d8 2006-07-06T21:18:17Z 2006-07-06T21:18:17Z

You've lost me Phillip. I had no mention of tantra or sexuality and you seem to have gone off on tantra. ???????????????//

Jeremiah 2006-07-06T21:18:17Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#831de56b-fd1b-4390-88aa-2aa8e5293f0e 2006-07-06T21:04:48Z 2006-07-06T21:04:48Z

Well, one thing I have learned, and am learning is that "conservative doctrinal conversation " for one person is a vehicle for another. My wife, for instance is a staunch vegitarian. This is a part of her spiritual path. I am not. But somehow, we have learned to see how each is expressing a truth for oneself without feeling threatened to change or become different ourselves. I can be a spiritual meat eater without suffering any disdain from my loving wife. And she can be "religious" about none of my "meat" utensils touching hers, without my thinking upon her practice with disdain. Each of us engages in "religeous" activity, in one form or another, as we put our spirituality into practice, and to one who is outside of the experience, it can seem different and strange. But what is dogma for one is practice for another. What's wrong with that? I also think, sometimes, in our efforts to be permissive of various ways, and not negate another's process, we often compromise our own truth, and enable some pretty destructive and hedonistic behaviors, deceiving others, without meaning to. I respect the person who maintains a continuum of strict sexual abstinence, even if she/he is stuck in dogmas more than the person who just screws everything that they want to in the name of a "permissive spirituality". I have also read the book about Naropa's actual work with the sexual tantra practices and the CHALLENGES he went through! Naropa actually bashed his "equipment" with a rock in the presence of his master several times because of his difficulties with this practice... and he was an Adept BEFORE he entered this continuum of practice!!! You can declare that this was simply metaphorical, but even if it were... that would be communicating a tortuous and rigorous process!!! So, we are certainly each entitled to our opinions, and ultimately it is the person engaging in the practice who must judge for her/himself the authenticity of such a work, but I'm going to have to weigh in my suspicions with Carl on this one... I've seen too much weirdness surrounding what we like to call "sexual tantra practices" in the West to compromise my truth on this point.

Phillip 2006-07-06T21:04:48Z Denny http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#f124dff7-e04d-4371-973f-7d76e3f8221f 2006-07-06T20:25:31Z 2006-07-06T20:25:31Z

Samael Aun Weor taught a simple kind of gnosis -- Death, Birth, Sacrifice. Death was dying to the various impressions -- lust, greed, anger, etc. This was done by invoking the so-called Divine Mother Kundalini. This was done from moment to moment with the small amount of energy that was available, but it was taught that the same energy became tremendous in the sexual embrace. Birth was the building of new bodies -- astral, mental, causal, buddhic, etc. Basically the same stuff that was taught in the theosophical movement. The Divine Mother was asked to do this as well. The emphasis here was in the sexual embrace, rather than moment to moment activity. Sacrifice was basically taking on the debts of others as your own, which would happen through internal agreements, but it was initially taught that the greatest sacrifice was in spreading the teaching. Spreading the teaching was important stuff. Kinda like in Scientology or Jehovah's Witnesses... Or any other religion... the religion of personal views, for instance. :)

Denny 2006-07-06T20:25:31Z Jeremiah http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#f5b1fd99-4b34-4732-afe4-651c03694e15 2006-07-06T10:09:02Z 2006-07-06T10:09:02Z

I am wondering if this conversation is about being open to what ever is available to assist self and others to move into a true expereince of gnosis or being caught up in the same conservative doctrinal conversation that has fostered separation from others.

Jeremiah 2006-07-06T10:09:02Z Carl http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#9571f0fa-bdfc-433a-a9e6-7af0bed85738 2006-07-06T07:48:55Z 2006-07-06T07:48:55Z

Yes, a personality club surrounding Sammael Von Weor developed, he taught such things, and said he taught Gnosis, but what he taugh had more to do with his own personal ideosyncrasies and interpretations than anything else, his teachings weren't based on ancient Gnostic texts and teachings so much as his own interpretations of Tantra and his personal interpretations of a mixture of all kinds of other things. He was similar to Crowley and Blavatsky in that way, I do not consider them Gnostic, because I use the term Gnostic to refer to some of the texts found at Nag Hammadi, and the ancient teachings reported by heresy hunters during the period of early Christianity, and when you compare Weor, Crowley and Blavatsky to such ancient teachings, they are something else. They may refer sometimes to Gnostics or to some Gnostic teachings or themes, but there's a lot of other stuff too.

Carl 2006-07-06T07:48:55Z $item.owner.firstName http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#acd2449e-d561-4de7-8485-60247c91877f 2006-07-05T13:56:41Z 2006-07-05T13:56:41Z

Phillip, It seems you understood very clearly. :-) Peace, Griffin

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-05T13:56:41Z Denny http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#464a1af3-4540-44c5-a8c6-b87a5612fd5d 2006-07-05T00:09:51Z 2006-07-05T00:09:51Z

The gnostic sect I was involved in for some time held that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was basically S-E-X (shame, shame, know your name). The snake tempted the woman to eat the fruit of the tree, she enticed the man, they shared in the orgasm, and then were promptly expelled from the garden. Consequently, it was taught that man and woman should never reach the point of orgasm. It was through a process of daily transmutation that men and women were to transform themselves into gods. Not just man or woman alone, of course, but the two of them together in the sexual embrace.

Denny 2006-07-05T00:09:51Z Alx http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#dc6731db-ddfe-4671-a0a9-2d044d39ed88 2006-07-03T20:36:31Z 2006-07-03T20:36:31Z

hi, Griffin and Phillip -- good one. what I've learned over the years is that the microcosm and the macrocosm are the same, just reflections of one another. hence, the planets reside in the human energy system as chakras, etc. in the human energy system, we have two kinds of life force, or shakti -- one is the kundalini shakti, the Divine Mother in her purely divine flavor (once it's purified) and the Maya Shakti, the 50% of Her energy that is illusion, that fuels illusion by attaching to the illusion of self and diversity rather than unity and no-self. the two trees, to me, represent the two shaktis that run through every human being. sometimes I suspect that the problem wasn't Adam and Eve eating from the wrong tree, but indulging the desire, itself, to consume the illusion. not the meal itself, but the desire for the meal is what kicked off the descent of Creation into creation. just a few thoughts. Alx

Alx 2006-07-03T20:36:31Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#a2d05f51-2fdc-4f41-b992-d8d4b2704018 2006-07-03T19:49:09Z 2006-07-03T19:49:09Z

My, my, that WOULD be Eden, wouldn't it?! Thank you for such a detailed and illuminating response! It is interesting to consider the possibility that these are both the same tree, somehow, that everything you said about the distinction is exactly true, as you have said it, but that there is also a level at which these trees are one in the same tree... is this what I was hearing you express in your statement, "In common logic and language, "experience" implies an "experiencer" and that which is experienced. But what if the experiencer and the experienced are one and the same? In this case, there is just being, and that being is the Supreme Being reflecting on Itself." ? I cannot help but wonder if the duality witnessed in the particulars of life is each and all particular expressions of the One, thus one tree...

Phillip 2006-07-03T19:49:09Z $item.owner.firstName http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#780f8394-28de-4567-a05f-b2dbaaeb88f8 2006-07-03T17:52:16Z 2006-07-03T17:52:16Z

Phillip, One interpretation of the Eden myth I've found useful is that the Tree of Life represents mystical or unitive consciousness, while the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents wordly or dualistic consciousness. What's more, they may actually be considered one and the same Tree in a non-dual sense, yet to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is to "consume" all the dualisms that consciousness constructs within the non-dual. Then, since "we are what we eat", we become consumed by the dualistic experience of life and all the phenomena of separation. Expulsion from Eden then serves as the ultimate metaphor for being lost in these phenomena. Ironically, with this view, the harder we strive to earn our way back to Eden, the more we reinforce our separation from it. Our mindset that Eden is the good place or condition, while we are in a corrupt place or condition, is just another example of the either/or logic that is characterized by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What this suggests about salvation is that it is not to be found by continuing to consume nothing but dualisms. (We can't keep discussing the meaing of this without continuing to use dualistic metaphors and analogies! LOL) If we can somehow eat directly from the Tree of Life, we should thereby heal the gaping wound that we feel, and in fact create, in our souls. But how? Different traditions have different words and ways, but it seems the most universal medicine is simply to be fully conscious in the moment, without judging, without categorizing, without qualifying or quantifiying. Just being. And such being is Itself Life and Love in the most transcendent yet also immanent sense. But this does not necessarily mean that the path to salvation is to sit around and attempt to be as mentally blank as possible as much of the time as possible. For me, the non-dual view of life is not a denial of duality as much as it is an acceptance of duality within an awareness of reality that subsumes and resolves all oppositions, at least intuitively. As a Christian Qabalist, I find interesting clues to realizing such consciousness on the sephiroth of the Middle Pillar of the Tree of Life. In particular, Tiphareth, literally "Beauty", is often spoken of as the intelligence or principle of harmony, or bringing an apparent diversity together into a functional whole - E Pluribus Unum. It suggests to me that to realize such harmony in oneself is to simultaneously realize greater harmony with the whole of Life, Love, Being, Reality, or whatever you want to call IT. Further up the Tree is the hidden sephira, or non-sephira, of Daath, which means Knowledge or Gnosis, the reflection of the oneness of Kether (the Crown), the supreme sephira at the top (or heavenly root) of the Tree. Daath is in a class of its own because it represents a kind of experience that transcends much of our common ways of thinking about what "experience" even means. In common logic and language, "experience" implies an "experiencer" and that which is experienced. But what if the experiencer and the experienced are one and the same? In this case, there is just being, and that being is the Supreme Being reflecting on Itself. Wouldn't that be Eden?! :-) Peace, Griffin

$item.owner.firstName 2006-07-03T17:52:16Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#0f522c91-5fc5-4e0d-ae23-8e378f574020 2006-05-24T16:27:09Z 2006-05-24T16:27:09Z

Yeah, that's how I see "the law" too, however was Moses' burning bush experience "Law", or was it a higher arc that he couldn't fully integrate as evidenced by his unwillingness to speak and have Aaron as the go-between? I think your metaphor here works perfectly, and this "fruit" is the revelatory experience. Whether this experience if fully integrated or not determines whether the individual fully embodies this "fruit" and actualizes it, I think.

Phillip 2006-05-24T16:27:09Z Carl http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#7d86519e-830a-4af5-8c5b-f8b6f58e5d4d 2006-05-24T06:08:06Z 2006-05-24T06:08:06Z

Hm, not sure where Moses would fit in, depending on which Gnostics, though the Burning Bush episode was connected to the liberation of Jews from slavery. The burning bush didn't give the Law. The vehicle of manifestation of the processes that lead to spiritual fruit, the tree itself, consumes itself as it is not the fruit but part of the process of developing fruit. Connecting this with Paul in a Gnostic sense, the principles of liberation from slavery to this world, as taught by seeking a higher standard in the law in the heart and integrating such knowledge intuitively, is a foretaste of the fruit of spiritual fullness. But the law and the literal episodes with Moses, operate on a plane far lower than such fruit, the plane of mere branches that are bound up in this world and are not eternal.

Carl 2006-05-24T06:08:06Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#6df428d2-f9bb-4225-8f7f-da7a14124199 2006-05-23T17:16:11Z 2006-05-23T17:16:11Z

Ah yes! Excellent connection, thank you! I wonder, then about Moses and the "burning bush"... would Moses then be some of the beginnings of this fruit of which you speak in this context?

Phillip 2006-05-23T17:16:11Z Carl http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#7e80e9fb-fe5b-4bf9-baff-5a73880ec9f4 2006-05-23T00:01:59Z 2006-05-23T00:01:59Z

Simon Magus was said to have taught that from the primal spiritual root there was a great fire that formed into a tree, the fire within the branches would consume the tree when it bore the fullness of its spiritual fruit.

Carl 2006-05-23T00:01:59Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#30745b17-5701-4411-8760-bdfdb97ed14c 2006-04-15T23:58:24Z 2006-04-15T23:58:24Z

I think it’s interesting that there are two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil and the Tree of Life. When I look into what these trees may mean in my experience, I cannot help but consider this idea of life, of a tree as a living being. It is an interesting metaphor for the cosmos, I think. The cosmos moves and extends itself from one root, this “Big Bang” as scientists describe it, and it twirls and swirls in so many different directions, spinning around itself until out pops (or grows) life. And life grows and develops until it is self-aware. It all appears to me to be a huge Tree of Life, a Tree of Being. Then, there is a stage in the development of this Tree that elements of itself, of it’s own body and substance generate an awareness of itself and it's being. The Tree generates fruit, life that naturally develops awareness of itself. In comprehending itself, it comprehends this quality of it’s generative power and it’s destructive power. In fact, the awareness of death, of the power of destruction and the individual's inevitable confrontation with it seems to be the awareness of Good and Evil. Life and Death. That which creates, and that which destroys. But something in this process of developing awareness must come to be able to witness the unceasing self-generative power of this Being/ Consciousness/ Force that operates within/ behind the universe. Perhaps we can come to witness the Tree of Life underlying this Tree of Life and Death, know deeply this one force that flows through the tree, and is the tree’s substance and nature, just it is our own individual substance and nature.

Phillip 2006-04-15T23:58:24Z lotusite http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#9355b424-aa05-4415-85e5-436cb7fac4bd 2006-04-10T11:30:35Z 2006-04-10T11:30:35Z

I just posted a pic of an ancient fresco of the tree. It has meaning for some but I don't want to comment on it now, although I'd be curious what others think.

lotusite 2006-04-10T11:30:35Z Phillip http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/6563a483-9022-4c81-88fc-ba5f1081e0df#0ba3cd71-daa3-4708-8cff-9f6110a97e32 2006-04-10T10:28:57Z 2006-04-10T10:28:57Z

Many Gnostics like to consider the Tree of Good and Evil within a different context than Orthodoxy usually considers it. I've heard many diverse views. Some describe the Tree of Good and Evil as an ambiguous thing, a Tree from which one could eat and find a Tree of Life, and at other times find a Tree of Death. Some Gnostics have contemplated an interpretation akin to the Zohar, which proposes that the sin of Adam and Eve wasn't that they ate of the tree, but that they ate in immaturity. Now, whether the tree was immature, or Adam and Eve were immature, or both, is ambiguous in this context. Some passages from the Zohar seem to imply that Adam and Eve ARE the Tree of Good and Evil. Other schools say this directly about Sophia Zoe. These schools propose that the Tree of Good and Evil a necessary transmission, and that Eve was acting as the agent of Pistis Sophia, or Sophia Zoe. The "God" that didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of this tree was the Demiurge in this context, and it is the Demiurge, not the true God, who kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden and places a guardian at the gate, not the true God. Each view is equally interesting, and I think there are profound teachings behind each view. There are many others that I haven't mentioned, mainly because I wanted to leave some room for different perspectives and intepretations. One thing seems to be common to Gnostics, I think, though. That is that this Tree is a central symbol to Gnostics and their perspective of this Tree seems to outline much of the rest of their perspectives on Gnosticism. So what are some other Gnostic perspectives on The Tree of Good & Evil?

Phillip 2006-04-10T10:28:57Z