The Ego: Self HypGnosis
In a recent post, I discussed one of the differences between Gnosticism and Buddhism, namely the conception of the Ego or Self:
Now, here’s the major (and it is major) difference between the two schools. There is no indication within Gnostic thought that the Self does not exist. Indeed, the Archons involved in the creation and perception of the ephemeral world serve to occlude the Self at their center. This doesn’t mean that there are invisible aliens crawling all over your soul; these are not “Body thetans.” They are, instead, the impermanent things that impede one’s ability to experience the psychospiritual state we call “dwelling in gnosis.” They are the roadblock on the path to self-knowledge, and through mindful contemplation on them, one doesn’t discover that there is no self, but instead discovers that essential spark of the Universal Self that exists under the surface of the World of Forms.
Leaving aside for a moment the more esoteric Mahayana teachings that there may actually be a self after all, I think this issue is really fascinating, and wanted to talk about it a little further. I especially wanted to address a question left in the comments of the original post: “Why would the complete elimination of the ego be counterproductive and impossible? The false ego that is. Could you explain further?”
So, first of all, to keep things as clear as possible, let’s discuss this concept of “Ego.” Traditionally, this is the “I,” the Self, the individual interface with reality. It is that “portion” of the living thing that translates perception into individual experience and creates the sense of distinction between the Self and the Other. In mainstream Buddhism (and certain other more esoteric religious traditions), the elimination of the Ego is desired that one may experience the Oneness of All Things. Typically, this experience (often conflated with the enlightenment experience) results in the dissolution of the personality and the elimination of the sense of Self. Critics of this spirituality often argue that they *like* their personality, and wouldn’t want to lose it in some vague, inexpressible Oneness. Which, retort the Ego-dissolution crowd, results from the attachment to the Ego and proves their point entirely and never the twain shall meet.
The Gnostic presentation of the Ego or Self seems to provide a kind of happy medium between individuation and union with the Pleroma, or fuillness. As I mentioned, the complete elimination of the ego is not something found in Gnostic thought– at least, not something one attains while trapped in the World of Forms. And, I also think that the Gnostic would indeed find the complete elimination of the Ego counterproductive.
As mentioned previously, the Gnostic Demiurge character represents the Ego and its trappings. “I am the only true God; there is no God other than me,” “I AM THAT I AM”– these statements made by the Demiurge are qualitative indicators that this is an individual personality which stands between the human and the true experience of divinity. One might suggest that throwing off the shackles of the Archons and the Demiurge would result in the elimination of Self. In Gnostic myth, however, it’s important to note that there are indications that the Archons will not be eliminated, but will instead be redeemed. In “The Reality of the Archons,” for instance, we learn that it is possible for this redemptive process to occur, as one of the Archons, Sabaoth, repents of his actions:
Now when his offspring Sabaoth saw the force of that angel, he repented and condemned his father and his mother, matter. He loathed her, but he sang songs of praise up to Sophia and her daughter Zoe. And Sophia and Zoe caught him up and gave him charge of the seventh heaven, below the veil between above and below. And he is called ‘God of the forces, Sabaoth’, since he is up above the forces of chaos, for Sophia established him.
There are a few other clues that this might be the case. Whether or not it applies to the Demiurge himself is a matter of speculation, but I tend to speculate that this redemptive process would extend from the qualities of the Ego (the Archons) to the Ego itself. In other words, the Ego doesn’t get eliminated, it becomes somehow perfected or purified. This is still within the realm of Modern Gnostic speculation, but I think the very nature of gnosis and Gnosticism bear this out.
Something that I don’t think gets emphasized enough in Modern Gnosticism (for which I know I’m pretty guilty) is the difference between “enlihgtenment” in the Buddhist sense and “gnosis” in our tradition. They are certainly described in similar terms, and in a pinch– when talking to people who are new to the concepts– the words may be used interchangably. Experientially, however, it’s almost impossible to determine whether they’re identical. I suppose someone would have to experience enlightenment and then gnosis and take plenty of notes. We can, however, discuss these experiences by looking at what has been said about them.
At the Palm Tree Garden forum, we complied a list with virtually every reference to gnosis found in the Nag Hammadi Library. From reading over these excerpts (admittedly a bit out of context, but still useful in this case), it quickly becomes clear that gnosis is a kind of eternal knowledge of truth. We see that it is something that can be transmitted. We see that it originates in the Pleroma with the Aeons. It is a kind of clarity, a sense of being awake or having blinders removed. The experience of gnosis doesn’t in and of itself grant someone perfection, as illustrated in this passage from the Gospel of Philip:
Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called “free” by the world. Gnosis of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, “it makes them free” mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world. But “Love builds up” (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through gnosis, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of gnosis. Gnosis makes them capable of becoming free.
Rather, the experience of gnosis provides one with the *opportunity* for perfection. Even the Archons can achieve gnosis, as illustrated by this quote from On the Orgin of the World: “Then the authorities received the gnosis (gnosis) necessary to create man.” The subtle differences between gnosis and enlightenment should be clear.
Nowhere in Gnostic literature do we see the elimination of Self or Ego indicated. Indeed, it almost seems like the complete opposite. Without delving too far into Cartesian Metaphysics, in order for gnosis to be experienced– in order that something can be known– there must be something to do the experiencing! This “thing that experiences” is the Self, the essential core which contains the Divine Spark. This also might be the Divine Twin found so often in Gnostic mythology. What gnosis is for, we find, is to raise the individual into a perpetual state of modified perception, a literal phenomenological phase change in which the perfection contained within, the spark and the Pleroma, become perceivable. This is the resurrection that happens while one is still alive. Without the Self, this wouldn’t be possible. Eliminating the Ego is counterproductive because you’re still in the World of Forms. It’s better to redeem it so that you can continue to make your way through the World of Forms. After all, the elimination of Ego discussed in Illuminist religions is impossible to maintain except, perhaps, in the most rigorously ascetic practice. Eventually you have to “come out of it,” to do things like eat or sleep or go potty, at which point the Ego is there in full glory.
Keeping in mind that this is all theorizing on my part, I think the elimination of the Ego would also be counterproductive because it would eliminate the Essence That Experiences. This extends to the individual personality; without the amalgam of stuff that we have built up around the self as the personality, the experience of gnosis wouldn’t be a unique experience, and since the entirety needs to experience every single unique portion of itself in order to become complete– for the universe to acheive its own gnosis– then the Archons and the Demiurge are a necessary part of the process. Eliminating them serves no real purpose within the Gnostic myth; redeeming them, on the other hand, would make far more sense in this context. So, although we could couch the idea of the redemption of the Ego in terms of death, it’s important to proceed *through* this ego-death to ego-resurrection. I think this also encoded in the message of the story of the phantom spirit found in the Pistis Sophia (the speaker is Mary, Jesus’s mother):
“When you were little, before the spirit had come upon you, while you were in a vineyard with Joseph, the spirit came out of the heavens and came to me in my house, looking just like you; and I didn’t know him, but I thought that he was you. And the spirit said: Where is Jesus, my brother, so I can meet with him?’ And when he said this to me, I was at a loss and thought it was a phantom tryng to test me. So I seized him and bound him to the foot of the bed in my house, and I went to you and Joseph in the field, and I found you in the vineyard, Joseph propping up the vineyard. It came to pass, therefore, when you heard me speak the word to Joseph, that you understood the word, were joyful and said: ‘Where is he, so that I can see him? Otherwise I’ll await him here.’ When Joseph had heard you say these words, he was startled. So we went down together, entered the house and found the spirit bound to the bed. And we looked on you and him and found you like him. And he who was bound to the bed was unloosed; he took you in his arms and kissed you, and you also kissed him. You two became one.
Another note I wanted to make is that in Gnostic descriptions of the Aeons and the realms of perfection, we very often find the term “Autogenes,” which means “self-generated.” Many of the characters found within the Pleroma “generated” themselves. It follows that these beings were understood as having Selfness, whether literally or otherwise, which gives credence to the idea that the act of emanation from the Oneness resulted in its desire to know itself. The emanations are “Selfs” that interact with other segments of the Unknowable Wholeness; by knowing the sum of all of its parts, the Unknowable Wholeness can come to know itself.
Now, after death, all bets are off as far as Self-ness and Ego-loss go. Although eschatology is generally moot, we know that some of the Gnostic sects believed in metempsychosis, or reincarnation of the personality that had not acheived gnosis while in life. Other post-death explorations indicated a kind of ascent of the redeemed human through the realms of the Archons– the planetary and zodiacal spheres– resulting in union with the Wholeness of the Pleroma. These accounts often describe the shedding of the “counterfeit spirit,” a kind of evil doppelganger that stays in the realms of the Archons or is discarded like a snake’s skin. This might be considered the ultimate loss of Ego, as one literally becomes the Entirety. Of course, if the redeemed personality exists within the realm of unlimited potential, isn’t it possible that the Entirety (God) could access any of these personalities in order to experience them? Perhaps this is what’s going on right now; maybe our lives are currently being accessed by God and we’re already sans Ego in the arms of the Limitless Light.
