Gnostic But Without the Gnosis
The trouble with the trendy neo-gnostic movement of today
The Issue with Today’s “Gnostics”
Many people now subscribe to the “Gnostic” view that the earth realm is flawed—was created flawed—and that there is so much suffering that this must all be a big cosmic-level mistake. Surely the only solution is to bail and swear off earth life forever.
The trouble with many people in the “neo-gnostic” camp today is they adopt a parallel existential pessimism, but they miss the other part of the equation: actual direct experience of what some might call “God” or Source (there are obviously other terms too). The gnostic term is Pleroma (Fullness), the divine realm which our souls emanated from and which the Gnostics aspired to return to/reconnect with post haste.
This was the path to liberation—precisely as in certain ancient Eastern schools of thought. The concepts were very similar: earth is the realm of difficulty and suffering, and the realm we originally derived from is a heavenly realm free of pain.
Many people today dumb this down into a cartoonish binary: earth = bad; Source = good.
Therefore let’s get back to Source and forget this whole hideous human experience.
I perceive that much of the current—apparently very trendy—gnostic-flavoured attitude (call it “Gnostic Lite”) stems from significant amounts of unresolved trauma—trauma that individuals have not yet reconciled and integrated. Simple bitterness plays a huge part, in point of fact. If trauma remains un-alchemised, it functions as an ongoing reservoir of suffering, serving as a perceptual lens that colours all new experience with the old trauma tint.
Things tend to look the same as before, no matter how different they might be.
This is not exactly a secret in psychological circles, however the eye cannot see itself, and many who espouse a love of truth sadly lack the self-awareness to see where they are falling short due to their own unresolved psychological distortions.
And before anyone objects by trying to challenge my own “gnosis” status and make this about me (which it isn’t), I will say that my own gnosis experiences are the very reason I am on this path and have been for over 22 years now. Multiple deep gnosis experiences without the need for external inputs (i.e. entheogens) anchored my nascent intellectual understanding in deep transcendental experience. (I shared about this in a couple of places in Book 1 [2012].)
In short, I came to know, not believe, that we are emanations from the Source/Pleroma/Infinite/Brahman, and we all carry that very “Divine” spark within, regardless of ego-level beliefs.
One issue with the Gnostic view of yore is that it really hasn’t progressed a lot ontologically—in fact, many people right now who support the black-pilled “neo-Gnostic” worldview are regressing it by over-simplifying it.
As scholar of Gnosticism Stephan Hoeller points out, the Gnostics and Buddhists (and Hindus) held that the “way out” of the world’s darkness is through “an essential, salvific change in consciousness.”1 Without raising awareness to “higher” realities, the soul’s enslavement continues.
Simply noticing human suffering and then bitching about it does not make one a “Gnostic,” any more than watching the NBA makes you a Chicago Bull.
Crucially, Gnostic pessimism towards the drudgery of the world is framed within a larger context—they knew of realms of transcendental consciousness, not because they read it in some book, but because they directly experienced it. And in light (pardon the pun) of that transcendental consciousness which all mystics know intimately, the earth realm can indeed seem a rather poor substitute.
That does not mean it’s “evil,” merely that in comparison to the lofty Pleromic worlds—or “God tier” of reality—it leaves the soul yearning for much more.
Deep down, we all have a submerged memory of far more elevated realms we have long known.
Hoeller correctly observes that labelling the Gnostics simply as "world haters” is a “gross oversimplification”:
What the Gnostic struggles against is not so much the cosmos as the alienation of consciousness from the ultimate reality underlying the cosmos, which in monotheistic language is called “God.”2
The distinction may be too subtle for some to grasp. Like other branches of mysticism, Gnosticism’s primary gripe is not so much with the cosmos, but with the way external appearances of “reality”—and one’s own mental creations—distract the soul from the raising of its own consciousness to the “true reality”.
The Gnostic’s adversary, or “Satan,” was “maya”, to mix traditions.
The human’s inner spark of the Divine/Source/Pleroma parallels early Upanishadic/Vedic/Proto-Hindu philosophy where we find
Atman = the inner Self
Brahman = the ultimate reality
Their identity = the core nondual revelation
Those known popularly as Gnostics never held the patent on this level of realisation—and it predates them. Mystical insight is the birthright of humanity, not an elect few—the issue is largely that so few humans show even a slight interest in such things, preferring to numb their senses doomscrolling social media, feasting on political “porn”, endless conspiracy rabbit holes, or other distractions.
The point of transcendence is not reading a book or two about Gnosticism, nor watching a few Youtubes about Archontic soul traps. As Hoeller observes, it is the inner self/spirit (Greek pneuma) that is the point of transcendence.
Avoiding the Darkness—Or Letting it Consume You?
Despite the fact I have publicly shared about—or mentioned—my own gnosis experiences multiple times in writing (going back to pre-2012), I have been accused of all sorts of bizarre things by various soi disant “Gnostics” (of the Gnostic Lite variety), including—laughably—being a “love and light” type.
Hilarious as that would be to anyone who actually knows me, the fact that I do not partake in the currently fashionable black-pilled style of bitterness-inflected neo-Gnosis is less due to an unawareness of the immense amount of suffering, corruption, and horror in our world, than it is due to the years I spent reconciling the darkness around me—and within me—so as to learn how to be in the world as effectively as possible, regardless of the insanity or instability raging around me. (Much of the latter emanating from supposedly “awake” people.)
I used to baste in the world of hidden agendas and maleficent conspiracies, and it became clear to me that there’s a fine line between “aware” and pathologically submerged in (externally-focused) awareness to the point of self-detriment. The darkness has to be alchemised on an ongoing basis, otherwise we become amplifiers, projectors, and mirrors of it, instead of transmuters.
“Gnostic Lites” tend to miss this, preferring to project their own darkness onto the world, instead of undertaking the rather unglamorous shadow work that would rapidly decrease their own suffering—and serve to make them much more effective and useful in the world. It is, of course, always easier to:
blame “God” (or the Demiurge)
scapegoat other people (such as bloggers) and take out your frustrations on them
point the finger at any number of “devils” or “responsible parties” rather than holding oneself to account
One of the things I’ve been working on in the context of Book 2 is sketching an architecture and taxonomy of consciousness—one which incorporates and subsumes Gnostic ideas like the Demiurge Ialdaboath and his cuddly Archontic minions.
When seen in their correct place in such a framework, the “threat” posed by these entities loses its sting and the world seems just a little less dark. I also explain *what* the Demiurge is and how the Archons came to be, in a novel way. (Jump on the wait list to be notified when Book 2 is ready.)
It is not enough to merely stare into the external face of darkness—we also need to look at our own, take ownership of it, and evolve the ego structure through a deepening spirituality—not a feel-good “love and light” avoidance dynamic, and not a nihilistic black-pilled path of lost hope.
Something integrated and relatively balanced—on an ongoing basis. Dancing the dance of life as a consciously self-evolving being is not a short-term gig.
When “Gnostic Lites” get serious about the latter task, their contribution will be less coloured by unresolved trauma and needless fear, and will potentially become exponentially more useful to humanity.
Hoeller reminds us:
In the Gnostic view, recognition of our alienness in this world is not an occasion for sorrow or a reason for psychological chaos, as might be the response in today’s secular society. The forlornness of exile [from the Pleroma] is not an enemy, said the Gnostics. Alienation and forlornness are our friends, for they point to a necessary truth that demands our awareness…Awareness of our alienation and recognition of our place of exile for what it is are the first great steps on the path of return.3
And here’s the real kicker: in Gnostic myth, as Sophia (Latin Sapientia) approaches the earth realm and reaches the Limit (Horos), a mysterious bifurcation occurs: “Her higher self, her essential core, becomes enlightened and mystically ascends back to the Fullness, while her lower self remains in alienation.”4
This is the truth of our spiritual condition in mythological form: many esoteric traditions acknowledge that while our lower self/personality/ego engages in earth life, the higher aspects or principles remain in the Pleroma/Monad/Source/Heaven unscathed.
Thus, we exist in (at least) two very different realms simultaneously, though the incarnate personality typically has a great deal of trouble awakening to this simple fact. (We are born into a situation with a highly limited informational bandwidth—the uplink to our “higher self” exists but its signal strength is attenuated/weak. This is a “default setting” and condition of entry into the Earth Life Operating System as it currently stands.)
In Book 2 I write extensively about the “mind-split” and multiple copies of consciousness and layerings of the self.
Dogma and Demiurge
Something that some may miss about the Gnostic worldview is that, while there IS a Gnostic worldview, there is “no theology and no doctrines to believe in.”5 Dogma is antithetical to the Gnostic. There is nothing a Gnostic needs to proselytise about and nothing to try to convince unbelievers of—least of all about how “evil” the world of the Demiurgos is. In fact, the primary characteristic of this unfortunate entity is not evil, but ignorance.
Trying to aggressively force your viewpoint or perceived “solutions” on other people is the work of unawakened non-Gnostic fundamentalist types.
The real work is inner work, not raging at the iniquities (or bloggers) of the world. And yet, some of our Gnostic Lite friends are among the most obdurately dogmatic individuals you could ever hope to find. Too often listening skills are in short supply and cognition is fuelled by emotional reactivity instead of steadfast reason and discernment. (To be fair, it is not someone’s fault that they were traumatised early in life, but it is their responsibility, as adults, to do something about it so they are not responding to everything from a triggered place.)
The OG Gnostics would not want anything to do with today’s Gnosticism Lite.
Just as others such as the great Robert Anton Wilson have jokingly entreated Jesus to save us from his fundies, we might well ask the Christ to rescue us from “his” Gnostic Lites…
…or at least bless us with heroic levels of patience in the meantime. 😂
About Brendan & His Other Offers
Brendan D. Murphy is the “consciousness guy”, afterlife expert, and author of the critically acclaimed epic, “The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science and Spirituality — Book 1”
📕 BOOK 2 IS COMING! Get on the wait list for the astonishing Book 2 of “The Grand Illusion”
UPGRADE YOURSELF with a “revolutionary healing science expanding the boundaries of being.” Watch the free How to Evolve Yourself (WITHOUT Hard Work or Meditation) Masterclass to learn how this transformative evolutionary biofield activation and healing work with sound can change your world. Watch the webclass to register and save your seat for the next live ceremony
S. Hoeller, Gnosticism, 30.
Ibid., 32.
Ibid., 54.
Ibid.
See ibid. chapter 2.
Love this article generally, and this in particular ... Quoting:
As scholar of Gnosticism Stephan Hoeller points out, the Gnostics and Buddhists (and Hindus) held that the “way out” of the world’s darkness is through “an essential, salvific change in consciousness.”¹ Without raising awareness to “higher” realities, the soul’s enslavement continues.
Simply noticing human suffering and then bitching about it does not make one a “Gnostic,” any more than watching the NBA makes you a Chicago Bull.
I don't care what effin colour the pill is.... I ain't interested! xx