Hello Phatboy,
quote:
Originally posted by Phatboy
. . . many scientific truth seekers and gnostics will carefully study and sift through human wisdom and experimentation before proclaiming evidence which supports their original position. . .
Your statement, above, highlights the distinction I was previously referring to. Although the term "gnostic" is derived from the Greek "gnostikos" which translates to "of knowledge", this is not to be confused with what you have labelled "scientific truth".
gnosis - Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation. [Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth ed.]
There is no "scientific truth". But there are explanations based on observation and experiment which are designed to provide the most useful understanding of ourselves and our environment.
This is not the kind of knowledge that is spoken of when the term "gnosis" is used. As described by definition, gnosis is a knowledge of unseen things, religious or spiritual, that can be obtained only by instruction from Gnostic mentors or some form of transcendental revelation.
Thus, my question to Azure Moon as to whether her gnostic understanding was the result of instruction or revelation. And, if the latter, what objective checks and balances are used to insure the validity of such "gnosis".
Namaste'
Amlodhi