Page 1 of 4

Is it not time to make the two one?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:03 am
by Pam Seeback
Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper as the lower, and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the female not female, and when you make eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].
For those who connect to the wisdom of the Gospel of Thomas the goal is clear, that of uncovering oneself of the relativity of gender identity. Which means one cannot say they know the Absolute until they make the two into a single one.

Genius dwellers, is it not time to let go of your Penis?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:06 am
by Pam Seeback
Edit to original post:

Men of the Infinite, is it not time to drop your Penis?

How about Spirit of the Infinite? Or Will of the Infinite?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:17 am
by Diebert van Rhijn

The last time anyone did that we got stuck with woman.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:20 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
Gospel of Thomas, 114.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:40 am
by Bobo
Was he talking to the woman or the men?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:00 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
As long, then, as the seed is still unformed, they say, it is a child of the female, but when it was formed, it was changed into a man and becomes a son of the bridegroom. No longer is it weak and subject to the cosmic (forces), visible and invisible, but, having become male, it becomes a male fruit.
Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 79

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:01 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
The perishable has gone [up] to the imperishable, and [the] element of femaleness has attained to the element of this maleness.
First Apocalypse of James 41:15-19

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:02 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Do not baptize yourselves with death, nor give yourselves into the hands of those who are inferior to you instead of those who are better. Flee from the madness and the bondage of femaleness, and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness. You have not come [to] suffer, but rather you have come to escape your bondage.
Zostrianos 131:2-10

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:07 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Adam was 'the man' as much before the removal of Eve from his side as after (Genesis 2.18-25). Therefore, when the primal unity is restored and death is abolished, man will still be man (albeit more perfectly so), but woman will no longer be woman; she will be reabsorbed into man. This is the point of the mystery of the bridal chamber (cf. Saying 75, p. 141); it was a form of initiation calculated to reverse the process by which death entered. 'When Eve was in Adam, there was no death; but when she was separated from him, death came into being' (Gospel of Philip 71).
F. F. Bruce

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:09 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
The transformation of the female into the male is discussed extensively in ancient literature (the transformation of the male into the female is also discussed, in the context of the acts of self-castration within the mysteries of the Great Mother and Attis). A few ancient accounts, in authors like Ovid and Phlegon of Tralles, communicate fantastic stories of women sprouting male genitals and thus becoming male, but most of the accounts use the gender categories in a metaphorical sense. Often the transformation of the female into the male involves the transformation of all that is earthly, perishable, passive, and sense-perceptible into what is heavenly, imperishable, active, and rational. In short, what is connected with the earth Mother is to be transformed into what is connected with the sky Father. If this is a correct interpretation of Gospel of Thomas saying 114, then the saying is intended to be a statement of liberation, although the specific use of gender categories may be shocking to modern sensitivities"
Marvin Meyer

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:17 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
movingalways wrote: one cannot say they know the Absolute until they make the two into a single one.
Two are breasts, legs, ovaries, twin, xx, mirror, duality.

One is monad, nose, penis, y, singularity, crack, unity.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:31 am
by Bobo
Haha that's funny, but you are avoiding questions as usual. Maybe you should quote that one from Zarathustra where men are complaining about women and he blames the men.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:28 am
by Dennis Mahar
Age old trick.
women, generally secretly admire men who berate them.
kowtowing women are a fondness for men
hooked up.
Patronise each other.
martyrs for the cause.
peurile conversation.

clowns in a circus.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:58 am
by Pam Seeback
movingalways: Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper as the lower, and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the female not female, and when you make eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].
"Diebert van Rhijn"
Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
Gospel of Thomas, 114.
I knew someone would bring that one up. My point is that when the focus is on the way consciousness perceives existence, by reasoning and feeling, one is more philosophically naked and truthful than when gender gets tossed into the mix. As Jesus/you pointed out, seeing things through the eyes of gender is a useful step toward enlightenment, but what I am saying is that not to consciously acknowledge that gender vision eventually must be dropped (which is the state of affairs on Genius Forum) is to leave out a critical step on the road to complete enlightenment. The Gospel of Thomas included both views, the lower view of male and female and the higher view of a non gendered spirit.

My assertion is that by hanging tight to the concept of "Men" of the Infinite "Woman" hangs around as hungry ghost.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:59 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
As long, then, as the seed is still unformed, they say, it is a child of the female, but when it was formed, it was changed into a man and becomes a son of the bridegroom. No longer is it weak and subject to the cosmic (forces), visible and invisible, but, having become male, it becomes a male fruit.
Clement of Alexandria, Excerpts from Theodotus 79
A male fruit. And when one eats the fruit?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:02 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The perishable has gone [up] to the imperishable, and [the] element of femaleness has attained to the element of this maleness.
First Apocalypse of James 41:15-19
You want to be elements of You, not the absolute You?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:03 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Do not baptize yourselves with death, nor give yourselves into the hands of those who are inferior to you instead of those who are better. Flee from the madness and the bondage of femaleness, and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness. You have not come [to] suffer, but rather you have come to escape your bondage.
Zostrianos 131:2-10
Salvation of maleness. But when you are saved?
Escape your bondage. But when you have escaped?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:12 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Adam was 'the man' as much before the removal of Eve from his side as after (Genesis 2.18-25). Therefore, when the primal unity is restored and death is abolished, man will still be man (albeit more perfectly so), but woman will no longer be woman; she will be reabsorbed into man. This is the point of the mystery of the bridal chamber (cf. Saying 75, p. 141); it was a form of initiation calculated to reverse the process by which death entered. 'When Eve was in Adam, there was no death; but when she was separated from him, death came into being' (Gospel of Philip 71).
F. F. Bruce
Death is abolished when Eve is restored to Adam and Adam becomes the Christ. It is the Christ who perceives the absolute spirit, not Adam.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:25 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The transformation of the female into the male is discussed extensively in ancient literature (the transformation of the male into the female is also discussed, in the context of the acts of self-castration within the mysteries of the Great Mother and Attis). A few ancient accounts, in authors like Ovid and Phlegon of Tralles, communicate fantastic stories of women sprouting male genitals and thus becoming male, but most of the accounts use the gender categories in a metaphorical sense. Often the transformation of the female into the male involves the transformation of all that is earthly, perishable, passive, and sense-perceptible into what is heavenly, imperishable, active, and rational. In short, what is connected with the earth Mother is to be transformed into what is connected with the sky Father. If this is a correct interpretation of Gospel of Thomas saying 114, then the saying is intended to be a statement of liberation, although the specific use of gender categories may be shocking to modern sensitivities"
Marvin Meyer
Again, why not include concepts that are beyond both? Will is heavenly, imperishable, active and rational. The Christ is heavenly, imperishable, active and rational. Not to drop the gender ride altogether, but to make it clear that it is just that, a ride.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:29 am
by Pam Seeback
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote: one cannot say they know the Absolute until they make the two into a single one.
Two are breasts, legs, ovaries, twin, xx, mirror, duality.

One is monad, nose, penis, y, singularity, crack, unity.
And men don't have two breasts and two balls? And women don't have one vagina and one uterus? And don't both have two legs, two arms, two hands, two feet, two eyes and two ears? I say these things to point out how messy male - female symbolism can get.

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:31 am
by Pam Seeback
Dennis Mahar wrote:Age old trick.
women, generally secretly admire men who berate them.
kowtowing women are a fondness for men
hooked up.
Patronise each other.
martyrs for the cause.
peurile conversation.

clowns in a circus.
A case in point. Messy symbolism made extra messy.

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:34 am
by Dennis Mahar
Do you think you're on a winner here?
Feel emboldened?
generator.

the 'think' and the 'feel'.

In order to for the sake of?

Re: Is it not time?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:19 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
movingalways wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote: one cannot say they know the Absolute until they make the two into a single one.
Two are breasts, legs, ovaries, twin, xx, mirror, duality.

One is monad, nose, penis, y, singularity, crack, unity.
And men don't have two breasts and two balls? And women don't have one vagina and one uterus?
Ah yes, but you didn't get the point. The vagina: the big zero, just more lips, duplicity and ambiguity, the great reverser. Even comes with a tiny phallus, ready to erect, just to confuse even more!

But hey, you invoked this conceptual framework and then ask me why I am using gender terminology here while especially that wisdom covers itself with gender identities all over, as I tried to demonstrate. You are not addressing this with much honesty or thought at all. And yes, Adam at the beginning and Christ at the ken forms together the appearance of Man. The spirit animating him, from fall to rise.

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:47 am
by Diebert van Rhijn
Thomas wrote:Jesus saw some infants who were being suckled. He said to his disciples: These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom. They said to him: If we then become children, shall we enter the kingdom? Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inside as the outside, and the outside as the inside, and the upper as the lower, and when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male is not male and the female not female, and when you make eyes in place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then shall you enter [the kingdom].
Here's the complete saying for those interested in the tradition. Some experts maintain that you can could see it as three distinct parts. The prime teaching looks a lot like the known gospel versions, then the question and a second longer and distinct teaching which is very much Gnostic sounding and refers to rejecting all earthly desires or distinctions, as was traditional in many (later) Gnostic cults. The expanded teaching does not explain very well why the infant reminded Jesus of this. What had the suckling to do with being inside out?

The canonical is simply: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." This is about ones approach to wisdom, one is brought and nourished by it, once the other stops blocking you. You don't need to make this into that like an alchemist. It's purely a question of being delivered by grace: to be reborn.

Re: Is it not time to make the two one?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:12 am
by Kunga
There never was a time when the ONE became more than itself.
There is no duality. Only the illusion.
Self reproduction. Your penis is my penis.


Image