1. Introduction

Gnosticism was not a unitary phenomenon. It was formed by a variety of sects with different doctrines organized roughly around a common set of premises.

In this article (which we highly recommend to read before this one) we discussed the Orthodox Christian theological order and its overall metaphysical structure. Going further, it will be illustrative to now understand the differences with Gnostic metaphysics, which predated the development of Neo-Platonism and had an important influence in many later worldviews. As we saw in this article, Gnosticism still holds a central place in many modern productions today (e.g., the Jesus Christ Superstar musical and Hollywood movies).

The characteristic of all Gnostic systems, however different between them, is the identification of the categories of Person (Hypostasis) and Energies (or attributes, natural properties) of God. Or, following St. John of Damascus, we could say that they fused the notions of Person and Essence by making each energy emanate in a personified way from the Essence. These personified Energies were then given a linear hierarchy, in a gradated and descending order of perfection between God and the world.

The system of Valentinus, one of the most influential Gnostic cosmologies of ancient times and the basis of Neo-Gnosticism, called their impersonal God Bythos (Depth or Profundity). It was defined by his followers as an invisible and incomprehensible Primal Principle.

Every Aeon or emanation was seen as composed of a male/female dialectical pair (Syzygies). Bythos pair was Ennoia (Silence or Idea). The next emanation contained Mind (Nous) and Aletheia (Truth), the next Logos (Word) and Zoe (Life), followed by Man (Anthropos) and Ekklesia (Church). The first four emanations (eight Aeons) formed the Ogdoad.

As we can see, the cosmological and metaphysical premises of Gnostic and Neo-Platonic systems are very similar:

•  Impersonal First Principle.

•  Sequential emanations of increasing imperfection understood as increasing complexity.

•  Mind and First Thought being the first differentiation from the homogeneous Depth or Source.

•  Life (Plotinian World Soul, the principle of motion or animation [anima meaning soul]) being emanated after Mind.

“Plotinus is simply “demythologizing” Gnosticism, with its various intermediary
entities between God and creation by dressing up the “hierarchy of beings” in chique
and sleek philosophical language.”

― Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, and Dialectic¹Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic (Vol.I), p. 106.

a. The Absolute: Androgyny and the Unity of Opposites

If anything, the dialectical nature of Gnosticism is even more pronounced than that of Neo-Platonism thanks to the sexually polarized symbolism of each Aeon or emanation.

A very revealing example is the fact that various Gnostic texts referred to God as “a dyad who embraces both masculine and feminine elements.”³Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 49.

The Gnostic God was conceptualized as an Absolute Unity and Intelligence in the process of generating Itself: “[…] making itself grow, seeking itself, finding itself, being mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself, daughter of itself, son of itself—mother, father, unity, being a source of the entire circle of existence.”⁴Ibid., p. 51.

Some schools interpreted such a definition as a metaphor for a neuter being neither male nor female. Others understood it as an androgynous figure formed of both masculine and feminine aspects. All of them, however, viewed It as a reconciliation and harmonization of dialectical opposites.

b. The Demiurge: The Intermediate False God Characteristic of Gnosticism

The concept of the Demiurge, the intermediate God (who ignorantly believes himself to be True God), Architect and Shaper of our Universe, implies another dialectical tension in creation itself: Spirit/Matter dualism. Given that the God who created matter is evil, it must mean that mankind´s ultimate aim should be a pure spiritual state devoid of any kind of body (not even elevated energetic “subtle” bodies).

A second dialectical tension is implied by the Demiurge being born of Wisdom´s (Sophia) attempt to emanate without her counterpart. Evil being born from an aspect of the Totality of God (Pleroma) is just another way of stating that they imply each other, just as Multiplicity was implied by Unity in Plotinus’ system.

It is just fair to point out, however, that regarding the character of the Demiurge Plotinus opposed the Gnostics. He dedicated a whole section of his Enneads⁷Plotinus (270). The Enneads. Penguin Classics, Second Ennead II.9 [33] – “Against Those That Affirm The Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil” [generally referred to as “Against the Gnostics”]. to combat their view on this tragic/evil figure, who in classical Platonism was seen as a positive one.

c. The Gnostic Path

For the Gnostics, there was a true invisible Church that knew the True God beyond the false one, the Demiurge. Those few were the ones in possession of the “Christ within”, which was the very soul of the Gnostic, a spark of the fallen Sophia or Wisdom, now trapped in matter.

Having received the secret initiatory knowledge or Gnosis, they recognized Christ as the savior Aeon sent from the “Father of Truth”, whose mission was that of a teacher who came to reveal that the true nature of the Gnostic was identical to that of Christ and God⁸Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p.116.. This notion of the God within was sometimes taken to the extreme:

“God created humanity; [but now human beings] created God. That is the way it is in the world—human beings make gods, and worship their creation. It would be appropriate for the gods to worship human beings!”

― Gospel of Philip⁹Ibid., p. 122.. Gnostic (non-Christian)

Salvation, understood in terms of liberation from life and the demiurgic prison world, was something that had to be accomplished by each Gnostic alone. The parallelisms with other common modern panentheistic worldviews that preach self-transcendence are obvious.

2. Parallelisms of Gnosticism with Other Forms of Panentheism

In this article, we have analyzed both Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism as representatives of the doctrines of the One, especially of Impersonal Monism (Pantheism and Panentheism). It is not difficult to see, however, that these same core principles can be derived from all other worldviews in this same category.

Be it Advaita Vedanta, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, all New Age beliefs derived from Theosophy (itself derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and Western esotericism), etcetera, they all follow almost exactly the same core principles and have the same primary presuppositions, such as:

• An Impersonal “God-in-General”: a totality that includes all opposites.

• Absolute Divine Simplicity: the only defining attribute of ultimate reality and mankind´s goal, achieved through fusion with the One, the Absolute, the All.

• A Dialectical Structure: that views all distinction as opposition. The One and the Many are in tension (Either/Or), with this tension being the generative source of all that exists.

• The Doctrine of Emanations: through which our nature is ultimately seen to be the same
as God´s.

• Spirit and Matter Dualism: even though Unity (Good) implies the multiplicity of matter (“evil”).

• Life as Dream (and in this case, as a nightmare): “[They lived] as if they were sunk in sleep and found themselves in disturbing dreams” [Gnostic Gospel of Truth].¹⁰Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 125.

• Particular Human Reason as Ultimate Authority: Gnostics developed their own way of reading Christian scriptures, and also created their own, abandoning revelation and instead embracing mere human reason and intuition.

Due to this, many different systems sprouted, as human reason alone is incapable of maintaining unity and can be taken in several directions (the whole intellectual history of mankind, and the history of philosophy in particular, being a good example of this point).

• Psychological Reductionism: the famous popularizer of Gnosticism Elaine Pagels, furthermore, noted parallels between Gnosticism and Psychoanalysis:

o She found that both focus on Self-knowledge (Gnosis) above anything else. In the absence of this knowledge, both psychoanalytic patients and Gnostics felt that they were being driven and tyrannized by impulses they did not understand.¹³Ibid., p. 124.

o Through a temporal guide or mentor figure, both tried to be liberated from these impulses, with the ultimate aim being the outgrowing of this temporal authority and becoming their own masters.

The psychological level was thus the mirror of the metaphysical one, with each Gnostic trying to become free of a tyrant fatherly figure (the Demiurge). Once the discipleship stage was over, the Gnostic became Jesus’ “twin brother”¹⁴Ibid., p. 131. and became a disciple “to his own mind” in a program of self-training focused on the process of “return”.¹⁵Ibid., p. 132.

As R.P. Farrell noted regarding the Gnostic mindset: “[it] ultimately always conceals a psychological program in the guise of a metaphysic, for its ultimate goal is simply to realize the infinite potential of the self, of the self as Christ, of the self as God.”¹⁶Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic, Volume I: God, The Foundation of the First Europe, p.59.

Notes

1. Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic (Vol.I), p. 106.
2. Mead, G.R.S. (1892). Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-evaluation of his Philosophy and Teachings. The Theosophical Society.
3. Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 49.
4. Ibid., p. 51.
5. Mead, G.R.S. (1892). Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-evaluation of his Philosophy and Teachings. The Theosophical Society.
6. Leblois, Louis. Les Bibles, et les Initiateurs Religieux de l’Humanité. i. 144; from Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognitionen, p. 224.
7. Plotinus (270). The Enneads. Penguin Classics, Second Ennead II.9 [33] – “Against Those That Affirm The Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil” [generally referred to as “Against the Gnostics”].
8. Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p.116.
9. Ibid., p. 122.
10. Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 125.
11. Bernard de Montfaucon. L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures (Band 2,2 page 358 ff plaque 144).
12. Mead, G. R. S. (1906). “XI. Concerning the Æon-Doctrine”. Thrice-Greatest Hermes. Vol. 1. London and Benares: The Theosophical Publishing Society, p. 402.
13. Ibid., p. 124.
14. Ibid., p. 131.
15. Ibid., p. 132.
16. Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic, Volume I: God, The Foundation of the First Europe, p.59.

Recommended Reading

Disclaimer: the following recommendations may contain affiliate links, which means that we may receive a small commission, at NO additional cost to you, if you decide to make a purchase through them. By doing so, you will be supporting us and allowing this website to remain ad-free.

1. God, History, and Dialectic. Volume I. Joseph P. Farrell.
2. The Gnostic Gospels. Elaine Pagels.
3. The Enneads. Plotinus.
4. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. Marvin W. Meyer.
   
   
   

• 1
  Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic (Vol.I), p. 106.
• 2
  Mead, G.R.S. (1892). Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-evaluation of his Philosophy and Teachings. The Theosophical Society.
• 3
  Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 49.
• 4
  Ibid., p. 51.
• 5
  Mead, G.R.S. (1892). Simon Magus: An Essay on the Founder of Simonianism Based on the Ancient Sources with a Re-evaluation of his Philosophy and Teachings. The Theosophical Society
• 6
  Les Bibles, et les Initiateurs Religieux de l’Humanité, Louis Leblois, i. 144; from Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognitionen, p. 224
• 7
  Plotinus (270). The Enneads. Penguin Classics, Second Ennead II.9 [33] – “Against Those That Affirm The Creator of the Cosmos and the Cosmos Itself to be Evil” [generally referred to as “Against the Gnostics”].
• 8
  Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p.116.
• 9
  Ibid., p. 122.
• 10
  Pagels, Elaine (1989). The Gnostic Gospels. Vintage, p. 125.
• 11
  Bernard de Montfaucon. L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures (Band 2,2 page 358 ff plaque 144)
• 12
  Mead, G. R. S. (1906). “XI. Concerning the Æon-Doctrine”. Thrice-Greatest Hermes. Vol. 1. London and Benares: The Theosophical Publishing Society, p. 402.
• 13
  Ibid., p. 124.
• 14
  Ibid., p. 131.
• 15
  Ibid., p. 132.
• 16
  Farrell, Joseph P. (2016). God, History, and Dialectic, Volume I: God, The Foundation of the First Europe, p.59.