In its many forms 'gnosis' refers to a meta-rational knowledge of metacosmic realities. In place of 'gnosis' the Arabic term ma’rifah or the Sanskrit term jnana could just as well be used.
This order of knowledge cannot be reduced or confined to a given form of its appearance in history, the gnosis of a Plato or an Ibn ‘Arabi, a Shankara or an Augustine, cannot be forced into one convenient 'hat', and even within Traditions there is scope for divergences and distinctions whilst nevertheless remaining true to authentic intellective speculation and realisation, so not even an Ibn 'Arabi, a Shankara, an Eriugena or an Eckhart, speaks for the entire gnostic tradition within their respective Traditions, although they each supply enough, adequate to the needs of even the most serious seeker.
What we cannot find, however, is a gnosis that stands independent of tradition, in the same way that man cannot stand independent of the place and time into which he is born.
Gnosis cannot be reduced to meaning merely 'Gnosticism', the Graeco-Oriental syncretism of the 2nd century. Nor can it be applied to various pseudo-religious, pseudo-yogic or even literary fantasies of the Romance Movement.
If, for example, a Christian can speak of Buddhism or Islam, doctrines which they do not believe, as nevertheless religions and not pseudo-religions, then by the same token it is possible to speak of genuine gnosis having certain characteristics common to its lexicon and method of transmission, and, as is the way of things, a pseudo-gnosis which is devoid of them.
St Paul sums this up marvellously:
"For both the Jews require signs (bhaktic / mythos), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (jnana / logos): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God (mythos), and the wisdom of God (logos). For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (ie the Indwelling transcends the human bhaktic/jnani dimensions)." 1 Corinthians 1:22.
The syncretism of 2nd century 'Gnostic Christianity' was the unfortunate but perhaps inevitable attempt to present mythos as logos, and/or logos as mythos – whilst failing to comprehend either – never more evident than in the tragic and sentimental anthropomorphism of the Aeons or syzygies in the Gnostic systems, which clothed the purely logos-oriented philosophical concepts of classical Platonism with imaginary and notably negative human psychological disorders to present 'damaged deities' (governed by ignorance and the passions – a particularly human characteristic) as the cause of evil and suffering in the world.
In short, the Gnostics re-invented a pantheon of deities that were just a re-presentation of the residents of Olympus (mythos), or whom Plato (logos) observed can hardly be called 'gods' when subject to the worst forms of human psychological disorders ...
In gnosis, there is first of all the intellective knowledge of the Absolute and this is what is inscribed over the portal of the
initiatory temple at Delphi; and as Christ said, “the kingdom of God is within you.”
Too often, and too easily, people read this literally to locate the kingdom within the individual ego rather than the trans-personal Intellect (which they assume to mean the measure of mental capacity and dexterity), and therefore claim some order of self-ordaining divinity.
Here we must compare the bhaktic/jnani, the devotional and the intellective, love and knowledge, mythos/logos.
The truth of human relations is that man is more disposed to the will than the intellect, and that generally, intelligence is moderated when it is called upon to hold a collectivity in balance ('offences must come' said Christ (Matthew 18:7 Luke 17:1) and St Paul preached this message knowledgeably and with profound wisdom. One cannot deny in sentimental and humilitarian moralism a certain realism and hence a corresponding efficacy.
Gnosticism, whether it arises in a Christian, Moslem or other Traditional climate, it is a fabric of more or less disordered speculations. In the Greco-Oriental forms it owes more to its Manichean origins and outlook than Plato. It is a
mythomania characterized by a dangerous mixture of exoteric and esoteric concepts mixed together in societal forms governed by mythological dogmatism.
Whilst, for example, modern gnostics decry the fall of the Cathars, and this is in no way an apologia for the way in which Rome and Christendom responded to the movement, it should be realised that Catharism is quite an extreme form of Christian fundamentalism. Suffice to say had the Cathars overthrown Rome, then pretty soon one would be looking back to the 'good old days' of the Office of the Inquisition! Similarly the Essenes, so often presented in the rose-tinted glow of a post Romantic utopian ideal, are now understood as being governed by a militant and dogmatic fundamentalism.
Gnosis / Love: There are various ways of expressing or defining the difference between gnosis and love, jnana and bhakti for example – but ...
For the volitional or affective man (the bhakta) God is “He” and the ego is “I,” whereas for the gnostic or intellective man (the jnani) God is “I” – or “Self” – and the ego is “he” or “other.”
(And there is the clue to the fractured pseudo-spiritualism of the West which sees God as 'I' and the self as 'I')
Most humanity is individualist – the West overtly so – and consequently ill-suited to marking the necessary distinction between the Absolute yet abstract 'I' of the meta-personal Intellect, and the empirical and ever-present 'I' of the ego.
Thus the comprehension of St Paul's awesome spiritual insight, that when we say "Abba" it is not us, but rather God the Father who has sent the Holy Spirit of His Son into the heart (Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:15) – this is a foundational statement of an authentic Christian gnosis – and as such something absolutely other than the pseudo-Christian gnosticism that is dependent on 'secret knowledge' and which places innumerable barriers between man and God. The attitude of the gnostic is an impassability founded on the discernment, as the Sophia Perennis insists, between the Real and the unreal, not a focus upon an infinite number of contingent relativisms.
Gnosis is the participation – however precarious and conditional – in the Real.
In one of his hymns to Hari, Shri Shankaracharya says: “Lord, although I and thou make but One, I belong to Thee, but not Thou to me, just as the waves belong to the sea, but not the sea to the waves.”
And in another hymn, Shankara expresses himself thus: “That which is the cessation of mental agitation and the
supreme peace; that which is the lake Manikarnika and the pilgrimage of pilgrimages; that which is the primordial, most pure Ganges, the river of Knowledge; that is Benares,inborn Wisdom, and that is what I am.”
This is the 'seeing through the glass but darkly' of St Paul, or St John's "We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) Augustine said 'But you were more inward than my own inwardness' and Eckhart said it over and again.
This order of knowledge cannot be reduced or confined to a given form of its appearance in history, the gnosis of a Plato or an Ibn ‘Arabi, a Shankara or an Augustine, cannot be forced into one convenient 'hat', and even within Traditions there is scope for divergences and distinctions whilst nevertheless remaining true to authentic intellective speculation and realisation, so not even an Ibn 'Arabi, a Shankara, an Eriugena or an Eckhart, speaks for the entire gnostic tradition within their respective Traditions, although they each supply enough, adequate to the needs of even the most serious seeker.
What we cannot find, however, is a gnosis that stands independent of tradition, in the same way that man cannot stand independent of the place and time into which he is born.
Gnosis cannot be reduced to meaning merely 'Gnosticism', the Graeco-Oriental syncretism of the 2nd century. Nor can it be applied to various pseudo-religious, pseudo-yogic or even literary fantasies of the Romance Movement.
If, for example, a Christian can speak of Buddhism or Islam, doctrines which they do not believe, as nevertheless religions and not pseudo-religions, then by the same token it is possible to speak of genuine gnosis having certain characteristics common to its lexicon and method of transmission, and, as is the way of things, a pseudo-gnosis which is devoid of them.
St Paul sums this up marvellously:
"For both the Jews require signs (bhaktic / mythos), and the Greeks seek after wisdom (jnana / logos): But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God (mythos), and the wisdom of God (logos). For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (ie the Indwelling transcends the human bhaktic/jnani dimensions)." 1 Corinthians 1:22.
The syncretism of 2nd century 'Gnostic Christianity' was the unfortunate but perhaps inevitable attempt to present mythos as logos, and/or logos as mythos – whilst failing to comprehend either – never more evident than in the tragic and sentimental anthropomorphism of the Aeons or syzygies in the Gnostic systems, which clothed the purely logos-oriented philosophical concepts of classical Platonism with imaginary and notably negative human psychological disorders to present 'damaged deities' (governed by ignorance and the passions – a particularly human characteristic) as the cause of evil and suffering in the world.
In short, the Gnostics re-invented a pantheon of deities that were just a re-presentation of the residents of Olympus (mythos), or whom Plato (logos) observed can hardly be called 'gods' when subject to the worst forms of human psychological disorders ...
In gnosis, there is first of all the intellective knowledge of the Absolute and this is what is inscribed over the portal of the
initiatory temple at Delphi; and as Christ said, “the kingdom of God is within you.”
Too often, and too easily, people read this literally to locate the kingdom within the individual ego rather than the trans-personal Intellect (which they assume to mean the measure of mental capacity and dexterity), and therefore claim some order of self-ordaining divinity.
Here we must compare the bhaktic/jnani, the devotional and the intellective, love and knowledge, mythos/logos.
The truth of human relations is that man is more disposed to the will than the intellect, and that generally, intelligence is moderated when it is called upon to hold a collectivity in balance ('offences must come' said Christ (Matthew 18:7 Luke 17:1) and St Paul preached this message knowledgeably and with profound wisdom. One cannot deny in sentimental and humilitarian moralism a certain realism and hence a corresponding efficacy.
Gnosticism, whether it arises in a Christian, Moslem or other Traditional climate, it is a fabric of more or less disordered speculations. In the Greco-Oriental forms it owes more to its Manichean origins and outlook than Plato. It is a
mythomania characterized by a dangerous mixture of exoteric and esoteric concepts mixed together in societal forms governed by mythological dogmatism.
Whilst, for example, modern gnostics decry the fall of the Cathars, and this is in no way an apologia for the way in which Rome and Christendom responded to the movement, it should be realised that Catharism is quite an extreme form of Christian fundamentalism. Suffice to say had the Cathars overthrown Rome, then pretty soon one would be looking back to the 'good old days' of the Office of the Inquisition! Similarly the Essenes, so often presented in the rose-tinted glow of a post Romantic utopian ideal, are now understood as being governed by a militant and dogmatic fundamentalism.
Gnosis / Love: There are various ways of expressing or defining the difference between gnosis and love, jnana and bhakti for example – but ...
For the volitional or affective man (the bhakta) God is “He” and the ego is “I,” whereas for the gnostic or intellective man (the jnani) God is “I” – or “Self” – and the ego is “he” or “other.”
(And there is the clue to the fractured pseudo-spiritualism of the West which sees God as 'I' and the self as 'I')
Most humanity is individualist – the West overtly so – and consequently ill-suited to marking the necessary distinction between the Absolute yet abstract 'I' of the meta-personal Intellect, and the empirical and ever-present 'I' of the ego.
Thus the comprehension of St Paul's awesome spiritual insight, that when we say "Abba" it is not us, but rather God the Father who has sent the Holy Spirit of His Son into the heart (Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:15) – this is a foundational statement of an authentic Christian gnosis – and as such something absolutely other than the pseudo-Christian gnosticism that is dependent on 'secret knowledge' and which places innumerable barriers between man and God. The attitude of the gnostic is an impassability founded on the discernment, as the Sophia Perennis insists, between the Real and the unreal, not a focus upon an infinite number of contingent relativisms.
Gnosis is the participation – however precarious and conditional – in the Real.
In one of his hymns to Hari, Shri Shankaracharya says: “Lord, although I and thou make but One, I belong to Thee, but not Thou to me, just as the waves belong to the sea, but not the sea to the waves.”
And in another hymn, Shankara expresses himself thus: “That which is the cessation of mental agitation and the
supreme peace; that which is the lake Manikarnika and the pilgrimage of pilgrimages; that which is the primordial, most pure Ganges, the river of Knowledge; that is Benares,inborn Wisdom, and that is what I am.”
This is the 'seeing through the glass but darkly' of St Paul, or St John's "We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2) Augustine said 'But you were more inward than my own inwardness' and Eckhart said it over and again.