Thoughts On Gnosis
We Gnostics love tallking about just what this ‘gnosis‘ thing consists of, mainly because if you have it, you can’t describe it, nor will you typically admit it, and if you’re trying to figure out what it is, you’re likely wrong. On occasion it’s good to take what you originally thought about gnosis out of your back of tricks and see if it still sticks to the wall. It’s a trickly little devil, because it’s different for everybody. Is it a secret? Is it enlightenment? Is it understanding? What is it? It’s most certainly not book knowledge, or anything that somebody can tell somebody else. It’s something that needs to be experienced. Although it’s easy to get caught up in the whole myth cycle, Sophia, the Demiurge and all that crazy stuff, but the religion isn’t called “Demiurgism” or “Sophiolotry.” As Jesse likes to say, “Gnosis is truth! All else is conjecture.”
Due to the many similarities between Buddhism and Gnosticism, gnosis is often equated with enlightenment of the ‘whack-in-the-head’ variety of enlightenment. For very basic discussions, the two concepts probably are “good enough for government work,” as it were. But, when we really get into it, is the signified really one-to-one with the signifier? Is gnosis enlightenment in the “flash of insight” sense? Let’s divorce ourselves from the Buddhist idea of enlightenment for a moment and look at mentions of the experience from the Gnostic scriptures, and see what we can learn.
The Second Apocalypse of James describes gnosis as something someone is “rich” in, and goes on to call it “…a unique understanding, which was produced only from above.” “From above” indicates that gnosis is something that descends, like light from the Sun, it then enriches someone. We often find, within Gnostic literature, that “riches” symbolize living information or that inner part that processes it (vide “The Hymn of the Pearl” or The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 63). So this author understood gnosis as a singular comprehension unlike any other, a new way of interfacing with reality, produced “from above,” from the internal realms that correlate to the Pleromic levels of reality/cosmology. Gnosis, here, isn’t something that happens to someone one time; rather, it’s an enhanced state of being or awareness.
But, what happens to someone who acheives this state? Does he or she somehow evolve into a super-moral “higher being”? Interestingly, evidence exists in the Gnostic corpus that the experience of gnosis does not, in and of itself, grant one perfection. Rather, it’s the first step on a path. We find an example of this idea in the “Gospel of Philip” (emphasis mine):
He who has gnosis of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for “He who sins is the slave of sin” (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, gnosis the father. 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.
So, it is possible to attain gnosis and completely miss the point. Since gnosis “makes one free,” one is free to choose either compassion or egotism, either love or power. Real gnosis, however, according to this Gospel, makes one into a servant, into a compassionate person who cames very deeply for other people. The experience of gnosis doesn’t make one into a “holy person,” or into someone who is somehow “beyond good and evil.” It gives one the choice to build relationships or tear them down; it extends one’s awareness in such a capacity that one is more aware of the consequences of his or her actions, but is at a greater liberty to choose those consequences regardless.
Apparently, it is possible to achieve gnosis and still be an asshole.
Of course, the internal change granted by gnosis is the most radical. In the “Secret Book of James” we find the following admonition:
“Hearken to the word, understand gnosis, love life, and no one will persecute you, nor will anyone oppress you, other than you yourselves.”
This passage implies a deep and abiding inner peace in the person who has come to understand gnosis. Regardless of one’s station in life, or the hardships one faces, gnosis illustrates that the reaction to these difficulties within one’s life are one’s complete responsibility. This is a far cry from the sentimenalist garbage spewed out by the “You Create Your Own Reality” camp of “The Secret” pushers. Note that gnosis does not automatically grant one the ability to love one’s life; rather, gnosis compliments and enhances this ability. This is really a fairly radical idea; gnosis, as an experience, doesn’t make one happy, but along with happiness it grants one a great deal of control over the way one perceives one’s life. This also lends credence to the fact that, when experienced, gnosis results in a heightened sense of awareness. It increases one’s ability to interface with one’s surroundings.
Along with this heightened sense of perception comes, quite naturally, an increased ability to reason and access to the Nous, or Mind. Another major difference between many mystical traditions and Gnosticism is that Gnosticism has never shied away from its intellectualist nature. Gnosis is something that can teach. The Gnostics were writers and artists, literate and intelligent. The Hermetics, our finest example of non-Christian Gnostics, were quite clear on this matter. Take, for example, the following passage from the “Asclepius”:
For the gnosis of the things which are ordained is truly the healing of the passions of the matter. Therefore, learning is something derived from gnosis.
“But if there is ignorance, and learning does not exist in the soul of man, (then) the incurable passions persist in it (the soul). And additional evil comes with them (the passions), in the form of an incurable sore. And the sore constantly gnaws at the soul, and through it the soul produces worms from the evil, and stinks. But God is not the cause of these things, since he sent to men gnosis and learning.
Of course, all of these practical results of gnosis should not, by any means, detract from the ultimately spiritual and mystical aspect. In the text “Allogenes,” a practical manual on a meditative practice, gnosis is achieved by the title character only after a kind of internal journey to the realms of the “Universals”:
When I was taken by the eternal Light out of the garment that was upon me, and taken up to a holy place whose likeness cannot be revealed in the world, then by means of a great blessedness I saw all those about whom I had heard. And I praised all of them and I stood upon my gnosis and I inclined to the gnosis of the Universals, the Aeon of Barbelo.
There is absolutely something spiritual and holy about gnosis. It would be silly to ignore how frequently it’s referred to as “awakening” or “sobering up.” Meditation, prayer and sacrament are still the best and most often employed ways to acheive gnosis, and it is still a very distinctly religious phenomenon.
So, though we can certainly equate gnosis with enlightenment, it would be more honest to call gnosis a state of enhanced awareness that allows one to more effectively interact with one’s surroundings. The “FLASH BANG” of enlightenment or epiphany can serve as a good metaphor for gnosis, but it would be more accurate to think of this epiphany as merely the starter gun that begins the race. Gnosis allows for greater control over one’s life, as well as greater satisfaction in whatever circumstances one finds one’s self. It’s more a slow, constant unfolding that needs continual vigilance to maintain than a small, infintessimal peek at the Light.
Now then, everything I’ve just written is completely wrong and incomplete. Your job is to go out and try to understand this thing for yourself!
