Watering Can 'O Gnosis

I had the sweetest dream last evening. Actually, it was this morning. It's around midnight now. I just now finally got the chance to unwind from a long day and write about it.

The phone rang and woke me up out of the dream. I'd love to know what would have happened next.

I was standing in a large cavern. Rocky underfoot. Bare footed, I think. There were about two dozen people sitting, standing, and milling around. I had a watering can in my hand. I walked around 'watering' people with it. On the shoulders or head, not on their feet like they were plants.

Afterward, the people who were drenched in water crept out of the rocky area and toward a rise of rock nearby. It had a lip that we couldn't see over.

Before I left I noticed there was a woman sitting, huddled, crying by herself. She had her knees drawn up to her chin and she was wailing her heart out. I went to pour water on her and a man stopped me with his hand on my elbow saying, "Stop. You can't. It won't help her." And then he walked out with the others.

Stubborn, I raised my can up over her head anyway and poured water on her. It was like a clear sort of bubble encapsulated her. The water didn't touch her but she started crying even harder. Confused, I backed away, set down my watering can, and left to join the others.

I crawled on my hands and knees up toward the edge of this raised land where the others were. We cautiously peeked over the edge and saw a gigantic hallowed out region inside. (It was like a hollow volcano, almost.) Inside was a sea of the brightest water I'd ever seen. Lush, sparkling, rippling. Islands were intermittent. But the water dominated and blinded our eyes. Pure reason and love.

And then the darn phone rang.

I wanted to scream I was so aggravated I was woken up.

I think my soul was drifting and the All wanted to show me that I wasn't alone. We all have watering cans and it's up to our own discretion with whether or not we use them.

The crying woman has me a bit confused. Why would she shut out love? Was she grieving? I can't put my finger on what it was she was feeling or what her personal experience was. And maybe that's not for me to know. What I do know is that this dream was just the soulfood I've been needing lately. I am thankful for Pleroma's gift and what a joy this day has been.

Full Circle

I've been musing a bit the past two days, relishing hearing from some readers who have discovered lay gnosis and thus begin their journey, and found myself thinking about the term 'coming full circle' quite a bit. Thinking about the growth I've gone through the past year in lay gnosis and gnosis in general.

When a lay gnostic says they've arrived full circle it's meant to convey deep seated satisfaction of the soul, not just in regards to where they are currently in their spiritual experience but in realization of just what this journey means in the long term.

I feel I have come full circle. Not in that I have somehow managed to fall back to a certain faith or mind set I had in childhood or adolescence. Because I haven't. No, I mean in that I truly realize that I am spiritually where I was before I began on Earth. It's taken me thirty years to get here. And I feel complete.

My soul feels connected to the All in just about as intimate connection as I had before I was born.

I've managed to sweep off and away all the literalist dirt others have tried to throw on me and at me my whole life. I've cleaned out my metaphysical closet of junk and useless shackles.

I am whole and complete as I am. No Hail Mary's necessary. I was not born in sin. I have nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for. Freedom is sweet and I intend to enjoy it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS. Right after I wrote this post I checked my email and finally got around to reading a message from Steve. It was on crop circles. *head/desk* Very funny. See, this is the kind of quirky stuff that happens with gnosis. It's that symbiotic connection that exists between gnostics and ... it takes on a life of it's own. I'm thinking about coming full circle spiritually and he writes me about crop circles. This is just a taste of the All's strange sense of humor.

Lay Gnosis, Reiki, Etc. --Chadly's Comments

In responding to a Reader(Chadly) on some much earlier blog posts I found that our discussion was getting so long and convoluted Blogger kept nagging me about the length of my return comments. *smacks Blogger* If I want to write a book, damn it, then I will!

However, in deference to technology I decided to make it a bit more coherent and move it to the front for anyone else interested.{Here is a link to the video we're talking about.}

In response to my post on Intro To Lay Gnosis Chadly wrote:

"Personally, I always understood Pleroma to be more the Gnostic version of "Heaven". When I speak of the True God, I refer to "it" more as "First Thought" or "The All", maybe even "Mother/Father", etc.

I agree much with your early statements about dogmatic religion's prayers basically not reaching. Just curious though, what are your views of the more "progressive" religions/denominations, such as the more liberal Episcopals or the United Church of Christ? Those are the two most liberal I can think of, other than Unitarian-Universalism.

About to watch the video now. So far it seems an interesting concept. It does seem similar to me to witchcraft and the spellwork I've done, and I personally speculate that witchcraft(at least, as practiced by those of us who consider ourselves Gnostic Witches and Gnostic Druids) taps into the same energy/source, both internally and externally.

Addendum: I just watched the video, and I find it very fascinating. It actually does kind of remind me of what I know of Reiki. It also reminds me of a couple of practices I used to do when I first started down the metaphysical path, when I considered myself a Christian Witch, that I haven't done in awhile and may try to resume.

The first was a grounding technique to rid yourself of negative energy built up throughout the day. You ground yourself and visualize energy black in color(or whatever color you associate with the negative). Then, using your hands, you kind of "pick off" that energy and throw it out into the cosmos, replacing it gradually into a white energy field, or whatever color you most associate with "positive".

The second was a visualization technique to help in focus of energy during spells, where you make sort of an "energy ball" in between your hands, visualizing it as varying strengths and sizes as you develop your mental skills.

The reason this reminded me of those, is because of the interesting fact of simply how I learn. In learning new skills, I'm a visual learner, learning by copying others, which is why the language I learned quickest outside of English, was American Sign Language. In learning music, I learn by ear, hearing it and mimicking. But in both of these exercises previously mentioned, I would have a difficult time visualizing the energy and the colors, and find myself noticing the *feeling*,such as noticing tingling in my hands during the energy ball visualizations. In retrospect, maybe that's one of the reasons most of my spells tend to be mentally/emotionally focused and attempting to draw things to me(such as to improve my attitude or draw opportunities to me), rather than explicitly trying to change the external, such as making it rain.

Perhaps that's why I eventually grew lax in these exercises - I didn't think I was "doing it right" because what I expected to 'see', wasn't what happened. Perhaps now that I'm becoming more stable in my spiritual path, I'll revisit them."

I am responding back:

"Christian Witch. I like that. Yeah, I can identify with that. Makes sense. But only when you're still in that stage of development. Once you move past it then it is no longer witchcraft. There is no craft involved. It's you and Pleroma. That's it. You find all the energy coalescing into the one place it truly exists instead of separated out into various aspects like what witchcraft focuses on.

http://gnostic-unrest.blogspot.com/2009/11/celebrate-2012.html
Read the scripture quote in that entry. It helps identify somewhat the attitude of the 'hierarchy' of the totem pole I talked about. Difficult concept to wrap your brain around. It does takes time.

The All is heaven. It is the place and "person" of what created the elements our universe is made from. It is the primordial spark. First atom. The very atom which exploded into the Big Bang. Your term "First Thought" would be about right. Kudos!

Here's how I keep it straight: the All made the elements. Sophia made Yahweh and hid him, embarrassed because he was flawed. Yahweh wanted someone to play with and so he made our universe out of the elements already present. Yahweh didn't make any elements. He molded what Pleroma already created.

The more liberal Episcopalians are still reaching. And the UCC. They've got a ways to go. If they get there ... we'll see. It'll be interesting to see just how close they come to being Unitarian Universalists in a few decades. And speaking of Unitarian Universalism-- Wow. I was just thinking about writing an article on them yesterday afternoon! Sheesh. Quit picking my brain, man! I already had some literature sitting here waiting for me to compile. That's really funny.

Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism are, in their own unique ways, the absolute closest I can think of to gnosticism. Actually, I'd put (farthest to closest, top three:) Atheism, then Unitarian Universalism, and then Buddhism sitting closest to gnosticism. My explanation of Atheism is in this post. They're like... baby gnostics in cribs.

Buddhism comes closer because of the meditative practices and body/mind awareness techniques which are so essential for a lasting connection to Pleroma. UU is only one step further out because, yes, Jesus was a prophet imbued with gnosis and he wanted to pass it on to all of humanity(hence the laying on of hands and the Holy Ghost)- but we cannot prove that he was in (a literal sense) the Son of God as what literal religions would want us to belief with "faith." Gnosis has not a darn thing to do with faith. Because technically, so are you. You are the Son of God. And I am the Daughter of God. Clarification: Yahweh! And you and I are both the grand(or great grand) children of Pleroma.

The whole definition of "God" versus "Pleroma/All" is kinda nerve wrecking in the beginning. So I call Yahweh Yahweh and the All the All or Pleroma. Simplifies the whole "God" umbrella.

UU's cannon is in fact cannon-less. They are basically hippies high on gnosis. Which is what I LOVE! I've been curious how many UU churches I could find locally. I'll have to intensify my search so I can write about it. I'd really love to visit one.

Their rejection of Hell is one of the most interesting aspects of their ... creed. Even though they don't really have a creed, per say. Let's just say that it's a common enough thought pattern amongst the members that it's "Commonly Accepted and Recognized" by the UU. This rejection of Hell is a very common belief among gnostics. UU's may not call themselves gnostics but they are. The majority of their members are either on the fence about to be toppled over straight into gnosis or are already there but call themselves UU's instead of gnostics.

Nice to see that Arius managed to have a lasting legacy after being stomped on by the new formed Vatican. Poor man put up with a lot.

If you have performed Reiki then your hand is on the door handle of gnosis!! Literally. You are on the threshold about to walk through the door.

The light ball or static electricity you describe is very familiar to me. (Although when you have one dominant hand it can get a little tricky.) The life energy field we all share can be transferred and manipulated. Isn't it curious, though, how the Church refuses to acknowledge that Reiki is in fact the same action as laying-on of hands healing? They'd much rather perform an exorcism. Ya know... just in case it happens to be a demon instead of simple illness. Overkill.

I haven't explored traditional Reiki too much. But from what I've read in passing there is a "Secret Art of Inviting." Is this perhaps the touch of lay gnosis? As Steve's video shows, lay gnosis is communicable(oh my God it's catching!!! lol) and so transmittable not only by touch but by internet and sound.

Blessings to you,

~Angel

In Remembrance of Thich Quang Duc

Forty-seven years and one month ago today this picture was taken at a busy crossroads in Saigon, North Vietnam. It shook the world. President Kennedy nearly fell out of bed reading the paper the following morning, exclaiming, "Jesus Christ!"

Buddhists monk Thích Quảng Đức, (b. 1897 – d. 11 June 1963) Burned himself to death with gasoline and a match to protest the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngô Đình Diệm administration.

As much as I strive to walk the middle path and veer not too far to one or the other side concerning my emotions or beliefs, this act deserves a moment of silent respect and at the same absolute grief and compassion. This sixty-six year old Buddhist monk had seen his country raped and pillaged by it's own government for years. The Vietnam War had raged for several years already and it appeared as though South Vietnam was going to end up with the same type of intolerant government as the North... but with a literalist religious slant.

The First Lady of South Vietnam is quoted as saying she would "clap hands at seeing another monk barbecue show."

In the end, pressure by the United States forced Diệm to sign the Joint Communique which (supposedly) gave religious and social equality to the people of the country.

The Buddhists pushed for a five point agreement: freedom to fly religious flags, an end to arbitrary arrests, compensation for the Huế victims, punishment for the officials responsible and religious equality. Diệm labeled the Buddhists as "damn fools" for demanding something that, according to him, they already enjoyed.

Diệm was a staunch Catholic and blatantly favored those countrymen of the religious group.

Wiki says:
In a country where surveys of the religious composition at the time estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent,[5][6][7][8] President Ngô Đình Diệm was a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, and pursued policies widely regarded by historians as biased. Specifically, the government was regarded as favoring Roman Catholics for public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business arrangements and tax concessions.[9] Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that he was a Buddhist, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted."[10] Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam converted to Roman Catholicism in the belief that their military prospects depended on it.[10] Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias saw weapons only given to Roman Catholics, with some Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism.[11] Some Roman Catholic priests ran their own private armies,[12] and there were forced conversions and looting, shelling and demolition of pagodas in some areas, to which the government turned a blind eye.[13] Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime.[14] The "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to be obtained by those wishing to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diệm.[15] Roman Catholics were also de facto exempt from the corvée labor that the government obliged all citizens to perform, and U.S. aid was disproportionately distributed to Roman Catholic majority villages by Diệm's regime.[16] The Roman Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country and enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and land owned by the Roman Catholic Church was exempt from land reform.[17] The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam,[18] and Diệm dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary in 1959.[16]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Diệm was the Vietnamese version of Hitler. He was a literal nobody who after decades of worming his way into Joseph McCarthy's arms managed to garner American support to liberate Vietnam from the colonialist French and communist elements from the North. That's not so bad. But once Diệm got power he decided that the majority religious group in his country had to be subjugated- the Buddhists.

Catholicism murdered South Vietnam. It's really that simple. It wasn't only a war against communists. It was about personal favoritism, trade, and control. What is truly disheartening to learn is that whatever Diệm's faults he was ultimately the only chance South Vietnam had for separating from the communist North.

With US support, Diệm was assassinated by his own General on November 2st, 1963.


The North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid." The political chaos afterward did indeed reveal just how idiotic the US was to support such a coup instead of taking alternate actions to assist in humanitarian ways. South Vietnam fell and it hasn't risen since.

Diệm was a US puppet who got out of control. Publicity about a monk immolating himself in protest to human rights abuses got out and suddenly the US couldn't stop the train wreck they'd set up years ago. It was imminent. There was no stopping it. Diệm refused to see reason and kept the violence escalating even after the Communique was signed.

President Nguyễn Minh Triết, the current president of South Vietnam was formerly the head of the Communist Party of Vietnam in Hồ Chí Minh City. The country is communist and has been since.

Does it seem as though only evil has happened since our monk made such a sacrifice? On the surface it appears so; that his sacrifice was in vain. But let us look deeper.

The day after Thích Quảng Đức self-immolated, the entire world was brought to it's knees in mourning. (Excluding China and North Vietnam, of course.) The world mourned that such a sacrifice apparently had to take place in order to garner attention to what was truly happening. The monk was only concerned with doing what he thought was right. The rest he left up to the people. And that is where responsibility always lies: with the people. The monk did not think he would miraculously stop war with his actions. He knew there was much more bloodshed to come. But he wanted to get word out and take a stand.

The gnostic gospel of Philip says,

Light and darkness, life and death,
on the right and left, these are children,
they are inseparable together.
But the good are not good, the wicked not wicked,
life not life, death not death.
Each element fades to an original source.
But those who live above the world cannot fade.
They are eternal.

Earthcentrism- Look How Far We've Come

Young Earth Creationists state that our universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh wait. They changed their mind a few years back and added four thousand to that. So make that ten millenia. This number is based on some sort of pseudo science and literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis. Their data changes every few years to keep up with the twists and turns real science.

According to YEC's dinosaurs were friendly and played with Adam and Eve. Carnivorous dinosaurs only became meat eaters after The Fall. Sharp horns and teeth were previously only used for play or mating displays. Another theory is that God miraculously changed all the newly damned carnivore's teeth to go from being flat to suddenly fitting the carnivorous profile(sharp canines and sharper front teeth for tearing) we now recognize.

Since the Big Bang theory was proposed, examined, and had entire new branches of science(stellar radiation, etc) submit information concerning the age of galaxies and stars farther away from us as well as the MOVEMENT of these formations, we've come a long way. Scientists now believe the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and have fossil records to support this claim. Not that YEC's care much. Their method of 'debunking' geological science is pointing at the Bible and then plugging their ears. You could try discussing archeological finds with a Young Earther but you'd get nowhere fast.

Scientists start by looking at what IS instead of what is written about the past. They go from zero and build their case based on what they see right in front of them. If what they find happens to coincide with historical writings then that's great! It's an amazing piece of history which was written about by humans in the past and celebrated as such. But if what they find in a laboratory contradicts what is found in an archeological record then the facts as they found them are published and that's that. The lab scientists let the other historians fight it out.

Earthcentrism(our planet being the center of the universe or at least the beginning of anything worthwhile) is an egotistical idea which has been molded over time, though not by much. Literalists have taken to flouting interpretations of the book of Genesis without anything at all to back them up, making for some pretty messed up rhetoric to feed to the common masses. Let's examine a few arguments:

Philo Judaeus(Philon the Jew) wrote, initially quoting Genesis in his tract On the Account of the World's Creation given by Moses(De Opificio Mundi), "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." "Beginning should not be conceived in a chronological sense for time cannot be before there was a world. Time began either simultaneously with the world or after it. For time is a measured space determined of the world's movement, and since movement could not be prior to the object moving ... it follows of necessity that time also is coeval with or later born than the world."

That is the earthcentrism I am speaking of. Everything good or worthwhile revolving around what's going on with Earth. All the other planets and stars are trivial. Right? Why can't time be before our planet existed? As you can see Philo created some weak rhetoric. All you have to do is ask the very opposite questions he is proposing and his argument falls apart like a house of cards.

We're essentially talking about Schrodinger's cat; "An observation being made can only then be measured." But humans and the mighty microscope are not the end all. Just because we didn't witness it doesn't mean that it doesn't hold value. The cat is both alive and dead based on WITNESS to the box opening. God being the one who crammed the cat in the box and opened it afterward gives us the story. Or is it a prophet writing down the words of God? And how do we stretch God's "days" out through 4.6 billion years or even a mere thousand years? We don't have a witness. Not one. Because we were not in existence yet. That is the paradox.

Augustine of Hippo, for all his wishy-washy and confused religious leanings, had at least enough sense to ask the right questions. "If God made heaven and earth in some beginning of time, what was he doing before he made heaven and earth? And why did he suddenly decide to make what he had not previously made through eternal time?"

In other words, why did God suddenly decide to create our cosmos? Augustine asks why while Einstein asks how. Religion and science meet.

Though Augustine couldn't have known it at the time this is what science proves thus far-

Big Bang's proposed explosion date: average of 13.5 billion years ago.
Geology's date for the Earth's "birth": 4.6 billion years ago
= BIG DARN GAP!

By the time of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, the issue was once again up in the air and this time moderation prevailed. In Aquinas tract De aeternitate mundi which summarized the 'beginninglessness' of the world he declared, "We hold by faith alone, and it cannot be proved by demonstration, that the world did not always exist... the reason being that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated by the world itself."

At least the word 'faith' was used in its proper context. Science was in no position to sway anyone at that time. Too many questions and not enough technology to run with ideas. And poor Galileo learned the hard way through house arrest that even leaps in scientific achievements with the telescope were not allowed. The Church was too egotistical to allow reason to prevail.

If you only have science to give age to something in a local region then how do you compare it to anything else outside your region if you don't have the tools to study this farther region? What is your solid point of reference? Until we began dating our own sun and closest stars within our own galaxy and then began reaching beyond, we really had no hope of being objective on the matter of age at all. Our point of reference(Earth) was too close. Too young. And far too changeable with its layers and weather and erosion.

Einstein, at least, was remembered fondly by the Church. Even with as much as the man was dragged into dialogues about religion he managed to stay true to himself. Pope John Paul II said in November of 1979 at the Pontifical Academy meeting held in honor of the centenary birth of Einstein,

"On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the Council's declaration on the autonomy of science in its function of searching for the truth inscribed during the creation by the finger of God. Filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist, in whom is revealed the imprint of the creative spirit, without intervening in any way with a judgment on the doctrines concerning the great systems of the universe, which is not in her power to make, the Church nevertheless recommends these doctrines for consideration by the theologians in order to discover the harmony that exists between scientific truth and revealed truth."

By dousing a good fifty percent of the Church's arrogant attitude much was gained. Science flourished.

Einstein relegated his personal religion to being defined as "awe." And honestly, isn't that a safer path to take when we are still such a young species?

Ahimsa And The Control Factor

Being married to a literalist Christian I feel the impulse to strangle him sometimes. I even blog about our mutual frustrations. (Managing Stress entry.) In some of the earlier days of our marriage it seems I swung wildly between wanting to scream at him or hug him and kiss him.

And other times I lie beside him and can literally feel the purity of his soul. I think to myself, "this is a bright spark" and can look far beyond the flaws we argue about so frequently.Words don't matter. Sometimes we coexist better in silence and facial expressions.

I had a roommate once who I honestly wanted to physically hurt in the morning. She'd let her snooze button go off like, oh... fifteen times... before getting up. The walls were thin. We worked different shifts. I was losing sleep. I finally lost my cool one morning and stormed into her bedroom, ripped out the alarm clock, opened up the window, and tossed it outside. Not my most shining moment, I admit. I could have handled that better.

My point is that I cannot control other people. I can only control me. But that also means that I should not feel badly for their rotten decisions or ignorant behavior. Overdraft your checking account? What do you want me to do- sit there for an hour while you rant and scream about the evil bank? ummm... no. I'm not a martyr and I won't sit passively and act like one. I can give you good advice, though, on how to not have it happen again. Then again, sometimes silence is golden. Letting other people work out their own problems is a good thing.

The Buddhist term "ahimsa" --to do no harm to a living creature-- applies not just to those times when we are contemplating going vegetarian or seeing someone neglect an animal. Ahimsa applies every single time we open our mouths. This Gandhian interpretation of ahimsa means being mindful of the result our words can have is one giant step toward gnosis. Why? Because if your eyes are truly open and so is your heart, you cannot in good conscience injure another being. In gnosis you see and feel that spiritual connection between you and the other person. Why would you injure yourself? Both you and the other person are part of the fabric of Pleroma. You are literally cut from the same cloth.

Still confused with the visualization?

Try this: imagine the irritating person in front of you as a younger and more immature version of yourself. You will be a lot less inclined to speak in anger. This younger and more immature version of yourself has not had the life experiences you have had yet; so how can you be boiling angry at simple inexperience? It's like screaming for a baby to shut up when all they want is to be held and fed. The baby is doing what he is meant to at that stage in his life. And so should you.

With gnosis and the concept of ahimsa physical age isn't a factor. An eighty year old could have the mental age and control of a ten year old.

Granted, there are times when it is essential to make your point and yeah, we're only human; we will fail at controlling our temper. It's going to happen. We're not Vulcans and we certainly don't have to act like we are. But slowing down, relaxing the muscles in our face, belly breathing, ..... all that... in those steps.. can make all the difference in the world in how you handle yourself when upset with something somebody did.

When dealing with a person who has bad habits, leaves you to clean up their messes, is irresponsible, and just plain doesn't seem to give a damn about anything you are not expected to just accept their bad behavior. The way I see it you really have three options. The third has interchangeable terms for obvious reasons, for all the different types of relationships which exist.

1. Get mad, yell, and forcefully try to change the person's behavior.
2. Detach and don't take it personally. Try logic and reasoning. If this doesn't work then you're left with option number three.
3. End the relationship/divorce/separate/move out and move on
   

A person only changes if they meet the two following requirements:

1. They have been convinced through logic and reasoning that it is within their best interest to change and
2. They want to change.
   

If those two requirements are not met then you're basically talking to a brick wall. Breathe and move on.


PS. Talking to your children about ahimsa works!! We have regular discussions about 'harmful things' we do or say to one another. You'd be surprised at the kinds of things children pick up on and will actually use if you remind them to.

Treason for telling the truth?

If you rat on your government you get charged with treason. Especially when
a) your government likes to spit polish its image using the flags which were buried with its honorable military dead and
b) it's embarrassed such indiscriminate violence against civilians was published ONLINE right under their noses.

My guess is that this soldier isn't going to be seen stateside again for a very long time. If ever. They're going to keep him in Baghdad. We'll never hear any thing more about him unless an absolute ruckus is created by Wikileaks and their lawyers.

For those not in the know, Wikileaks.org is an off-shoot of Wikipedia.org which is the world's best free online encyclopedia. Boundaries do not exist in their mind. Wiki's founders and directors have fought for years on the issue of freedom of speech- especially crossing country divisions where people simply do not have access to uncensored information by their government. A grade school child in China cannot do a search on "Tienanmen Square" without getting the red screen of death meaning that they've chosen to search for an illegal term. There are servers which have popped up sporadically in countries like this to offset the totalitarian thought control, however the majority of populations in countries with censorship still do not know a great deal of what is really going on in the world around them. Everything is hearsay.

A few months ago when I first learned of the Wikileaks organization I immediately put up a link to it in the Human Rights Sites and Organizations module on the blog. It will remain a permanent link.

As far as 'gnosis' is concerned- Wikileaks is right up our ally. Why censor, denounce, classify, or withhold information unless it is damaging to an entity's perceived image? And if something isn't broke then it doesn't need fixing, right? But if it is.....

{Link to another interesting article: US Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 March 2008}

Charges filed against soldier in Wikileaks case.

Army private allegedly leaked classified video of deadly Baghad attack

msnbc.com and NBC News

updated 7/6/2010 12:06:11 PM ET

Criminal charges have been filed against a 22-year old Army private accussed of leaking classified video of an Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a number of civilians to the Wikileaks.org website.

Private First Class Bradley Manning faces two charges and 12 counts of illegally providing classified information to an unauthorized source.

The charge sheet claims that PFC Manning unlawfully accessed the gun camera video of an Apache helicopter attack on July 12, 2007 against suspected insurgents killing an undetermined number of civilians. Then Manning allegedly passed that video onto Wikileaks, which is known for posting such controversial documents as the Army’s Guantánamo Bay procedures, Church of Scientology documents and contents from Sarah Palin’s e-mail account.

Wikileaks posted two versions of the now-infamous Baghdad airstrike video, a 39-minute unedited version and an annotated 18-minute version, on April 5, 2010. Titling it “Collateral Murder,” Wikileaks cited the video as evidence of a Pentagon coverup. Two Reuters employees and a Baghdad man were three of the more than a dozen killed during the attack. Two children were also seriously injured.

Manning is also charged with unlawfully tapping into the military's secret Internet protocol router network to obtain the video, and more than 200,000 classified State Department cables.

The Associated Press reported previously that former computer Hacker Adrian Lamo says that Manning claimed in a series of online chats that he downloaded 260,000 classified or sensitive State Department cables and transmitted them by computer to Wikileaks.

Manning remains in custody in Kuwait but will be returned to Baghdad shortly to face an Article 32 hearing, the military's equivalent of a grand jury hearing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Chris" commented on the article:

I am just an old guy. But I was career military intelligence and served in Vietnam. While there I had the "privilege" of watching Nixon on TV swearing "on his mother's grave" that were not bombing in Laos or Cambodia while interviewing pilots who were returning from bombing in Laos and Cambodia. We constantly received TWX's (teletype messages) telling us that we could go to jail for disclosing any information at all to journalists, Congressmen, FBI agents, or any other person, official or not, who asked. While I was in Vietnam I read Bernard Fall's book, "Rue Sans Joi" and when I returned it to the base library, watched in horror as the librarian tore the book to pieces, because it was considered to be harmful to morale.

In another later incident, I had a NSA employee show me the radar tapes of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that Johnson used to justify new ROE's for bombing of the North. There were no torpedo boats on the tapes. There were no intercepted communications with the non-existent boats.

I got to see infants who had been killed with M-16 fire (where I was it could have been either Americans or Koreans who did the shooting) and was ordered to count dead babies as "main force NVA soldiers."

I had friends who died and friends who were wounded (including myself) in Vietnam. I didn't come back with PTSD or Agent Orange poisoning, just some scalp and facial holes and a great deal of hearing loss. But what I did bring home was a sense of guilt that I did not make an attempt to disclose what I knew. Sometimes not telling the truth is the same as telling a lie.

But I did what, at the time, I perceived as the "honorable" thing --- when my hitch was up, I threw away 10 years of service and did not re-up. My heart simply was no longer in watching my government under both Johnson and Nixon tell lie after lie about the war.

So I can well understand how a soldier, when confronted with situation where the military acted inappropriately and with ill-conceived malice would find it easier to tell and suffer the consequences rather that have to live with the knowledge that he did nothing.

And for those who call it treason. Telling the truth has never been treasonous. And treason is strictly limited to giving aid to the enemy in a declared war. The military has a long history of classifying documents and such in order to keep the truth from the American public and the victims' families. A good example is the Tillman affair in which McChrystal knew that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, in violation of the RoE's and in a situation where training and "best practices" had been disregarded. McChrystal proposed awarding Tillman a Silver Star instead and had everything related to the incident classified "Top Secret." The people who "blew the whistle" on the Tillman situation was an Army physician who did the autopsy and several of the Seals who were with Tillman. Was that treason?

If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion."

Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.

Does The Internet Need A Kill Switch?

I caught this article today on MSN. Read it and weep. The Republicans are showing just what kind of future they want for us- right under their thumb.

Article by Megan Gibson, 6/24/10, on Time NewsFeed

A proposed bill could effectively give the president an Internet “kill switch.”

Senator Joseph Lieberman has proposed the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), a bill that would give the president the power to control or even shut down the Internet in emergency situations. Citing the need for cybersecurity, Lieberman said in a press release that the U.S.’s “economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

The bill requires that U.S.-based companies such as Google and Yahoo, as well as broadband providers and software firms, comply with any and all measures that the government sees fit in an emergency.

Technology trade association, TechAmerica, has already expressed worry at the level of control the bill would grant the president if passed — levels that could have “unintended consequences.” Other countries are also decrying the bill, fearing the impact on their own security if the U.S. were to shut down essential parts of the Internet. (via CNET)

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/18/does-the-internet-need-a-kill-switch/#ixzz0rkIUQWAX

Smiling Gnostics

Saw a funny comment the other day on a YouTube vid. "Why don't those gnostics ever smile?"

I admit, it made me laugh. Then it irked me because the video wasn't talking about anything ANYONE would smile while discussing. But maybe that's not really the point.

Why don't gnostics smile. Hmmm.

Man, the world is freaking hilarious!!!! But most of the time it's not funny in a ha-ha kind of funny. At least not to us. Most of the time it's an eye-roll-and-a-sigh kind of funny. And not because we don't love to have fun and laugh at ourselves or other people doing ridiculous things.

It's the perspective.

We're not emo. Au contraire. We're passionate, chaste, cavorting, praying, loving, LIVING human beings just like you. We are everyone and everything imaginable.

With the gnostic perspective the wool comes off the eyes and truth glares rather harshly. We can't put our hands over our eyes and no amount of sunblock will kill the blinding rays of the truth. Once your eyes are open they're open for good.

This makes it difficult to judge a lot of things except by waiting a sufficient amount of time for actions to be completed. This 'lack of smile' you think you see from us is really patience. Patience which we have learned to nurture within ourselves because that is the only way to spiritually survive.

It's like watching a car wreck in slow motion. You know it's happening. You're watching it with your own eyes. Your own senses. You know somebody's going to die. You just don't know who or exactly how. And you won't know exactly how to help until everything quits moving.

Sometimes we're given nudges from the Good God telling us that we need to be somewhere or do something or say something to a particular someone. We won't know why. I'd say that 75% of the time we figure it out. The other 25% is a total mystery. And so we live with mystery in our lives. We don't always find answers but we do continue to search with open hearts and minds.

So why don't gnostics smile?

We do. But explaining and describing the car wreck that is this planet to you can be a bit draining on us emotionally. What we can say often has the potential to be misconstrued. And we don't like being misunderstood. So we try very carefully to choose our words. Caution is the better part of valor. Not because we have anything to hide, but because we love you so much. We see you in us. We feel a divine connection to you and want to protect you and we cannot always do that. Sometimes it's just not meant to be. Sometimes we're meant to piss you off! Even when we try to pick and choose our words so carefully. And sometimes we're nudged that you need a certain... harsh variety of truth. It goes both ways. But when we speak to you we understand that we are ultimately speaking to ourselves because you are part of us in spirit.