Gnosticism -vs- Neoplatonism
Stephan A. Hoeller has distilled 12 central points that all Gnostics agree to, regardless of their specific dogmas. Being of neoplatonic, not gnostic persuasion, and recognizing that Plotinus himself attacked gnosticism (and never attacked Christianity), I will give my response as follows. Given time, I hope that we can further discuss and perhaps better understand what exactly the differences are between neoplatonism and gnosticism.
Hoeller's points are in bold.
The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.
KH: I see it more as an inversion rather than a "split". The One cannot be split nor diminished and all duality is ultimately resolved in the ground and goal of unity which is eternal and indivisible.
As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.
KH: This is obviously delusional. First of all, this completely denies such foundational principles as "Best of All Possible Worlds", the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the Principle of Parsimony. It also continues the false understanding of creation as ex nihilo and the literalist interpretation of the Old Testament teachings while actually corrupting the idea of the Demiurge and descending into a pathetic Manicheanism.
A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).
KH: By what possible logic? This is just more delusion and creative imagination that cannot be derived at by a priori rationalism. Whatever Gnosticism is it is most certainly not rationalistic and if it is intuition it is contradictory to the Perennial Philosophy.
In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.
KH: How do these people sleep at night? Space and Time are rational concepts which necessarily exist as attributes of existence for to exist is to exist in space and time. Furthermore, separation from God is inherently impossible.
For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.
KH: Then there really wouldn't be any way to get out would there? There is a failure here to distinguish between the universe/world soul and the world system. Also, the emphasis on Mosaic code reduces Gnosticism to a reaction to Abrahamic religion, as opposed to its desire to be a universal system. The Chinese and Indians never lived under any Mosaic Law.
Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.
KH: This one is certainly agreeable. I will grant them this one but it will be required of them to explain how the gnostics know this to be true for they are also of Adam but with a malevolent cosmos and evil creator the gnostic is hard-pressed to explain how he knows he is in ignorance, otherwise it fails the performative test.
Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.
KH: Actually, the "inner man" IS the natural man - there is no actual distinction for as a man thinketh so is he. The outer man is not a real man but simply a form of thought to a perceiver, its corpse being the perception of an existence in space and time to other perceivers.
What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.
KH: I agree with the primacy of knowledge but what "awakens" us to it? Is not the knowing that one is asleep a form of knowledge? Why do so few seek this knowledge which Christ says will be found when it is sought? Is it really true that there is only one path for all humans or is the way of Jnana, knowledge, for some and not others? Is not this knowledge obtained through hard work, devotion, and purification which clouds the mind and creates confusion? It seems to me that denigrating obedience, faith and good works is infelicitous and dangerous, leading to arrogance and to rebellion against the better wisdom of the great teachers of mankind.
Actually, being is even higher than knowledge and this comes about only by grace, as a gift. The Platonists teach that true knowledge is true being. For to know it is to be it.
Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams
KH: Not sure what this means exactly but I see no reason for Gnostics to make this assumption for religious experience is very subjective and unique. Why elevate "troubled dreams" to an enlightenment prerequisite? Is not the waking state trouble enough?
Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.
KH: How do you distinguish "revelatory experience" from cognition?
The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.
KH: Ok - i will accept that. The only of the 12 points I can accept unconditionally.
Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man
KH: There IS NO EFFORT required to "restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead" since it is not broken but perfect always - only our attitude and understanding is too low - and if effort was required, how would it even be possible by human effort alone to bring about such unity? Further, the "active rebellion" is contrary to the essential teachings of Christ who said that he came to fulfill and not abolish the Law and to Resist Not Evil. It is also against the Way of the Tao. To take upon oneself rebellion against anything is to become a rebel not a knower, contrary to the very definition of gnosis.
Hoeller's points are in bold.
The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.
KH: I see it more as an inversion rather than a "split". The One cannot be split nor diminished and all duality is ultimately resolved in the ground and goal of unity which is eternal and indivisible.
As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.
KH: This is obviously delusional. First of all, this completely denies such foundational principles as "Best of All Possible Worlds", the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the Principle of Parsimony. It also continues the false understanding of creation as ex nihilo and the literalist interpretation of the Old Testament teachings while actually corrupting the idea of the Demiurge and descending into a pathetic Manicheanism.
A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).
KH: By what possible logic? This is just more delusion and creative imagination that cannot be derived at by a priori rationalism. Whatever Gnosticism is it is most certainly not rationalistic and if it is intuition it is contradictory to the Perennial Philosophy.
In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.
KH: How do these people sleep at night? Space and Time are rational concepts which necessarily exist as attributes of existence for to exist is to exist in space and time. Furthermore, separation from God is inherently impossible.
For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.
KH: Then there really wouldn't be any way to get out would there? There is a failure here to distinguish between the universe/world soul and the world system. Also, the emphasis on Mosaic code reduces Gnosticism to a reaction to Abrahamic religion, as opposed to its desire to be a universal system. The Chinese and Indians never lived under any Mosaic Law.
Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.
KH: This one is certainly agreeable. I will grant them this one but it will be required of them to explain how the gnostics know this to be true for they are also of Adam but with a malevolent cosmos and evil creator the gnostic is hard-pressed to explain how he knows he is in ignorance, otherwise it fails the performative test.
Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.
KH: Actually, the "inner man" IS the natural man - there is no actual distinction for as a man thinketh so is he. The outer man is not a real man but simply a form of thought to a perceiver, its corpse being the perception of an existence in space and time to other perceivers.
What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.
KH: I agree with the primacy of knowledge but what "awakens" us to it? Is not the knowing that one is asleep a form of knowledge? Why do so few seek this knowledge which Christ says will be found when it is sought? Is it really true that there is only one path for all humans or is the way of Jnana, knowledge, for some and not others? Is not this knowledge obtained through hard work, devotion, and purification which clouds the mind and creates confusion? It seems to me that denigrating obedience, faith and good works is infelicitous and dangerous, leading to arrogance and to rebellion against the better wisdom of the great teachers of mankind.
Actually, being is even higher than knowledge and this comes about only by grace, as a gift. The Platonists teach that true knowledge is true being. For to know it is to be it.
Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams
KH: Not sure what this means exactly but I see no reason for Gnostics to make this assumption for religious experience is very subjective and unique. Why elevate "troubled dreams" to an enlightenment prerequisite? Is not the waking state trouble enough?
Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.
KH: How do you distinguish "revelatory experience" from cognition?
The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.
KH: Ok - i will accept that. The only of the 12 points I can accept unconditionally.
Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man
KH: There IS NO EFFORT required to "restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead" since it is not broken but perfect always - only our attitude and understanding is too low - and if effort was required, how would it even be possible by human effort alone to bring about such unity? Further, the "active rebellion" is contrary to the essential teachings of Christ who said that he came to fulfill and not abolish the Law and to Resist Not Evil. It is also against the Way of the Tao. To take upon oneself rebellion against anything is to become a rebel not a knower, contrary to the very definition of gnosis.
posted by Keith D. Hansen | 9:35 PM
2 Comments:
The Neoplatonist Tradition is still alive and well in certain undercurrents of philosophy, whereas the entire structure of modernity and its anti-values are Gnostic in nature, replete with false dichotomies that enable the elite to manipulate the ignorant.
Neoplatonists, that is, those who wish to see unity as all encompassing, would include Meister Eckhart, Goethe, Bulgakov, and to a lesser extent the various schools of Zen and Theravadan Buddhism.
Hoeller is a neo-gnostic evangelist, and the gnosticism he preaches is an interesting construction that probably doesn't correspond to anything that existed in the ancient world. For a thoughtful assessment of what we really know about gnosticism, see Karen L. King's "What Is Gnosticism?"
That said, Plotinus' arguments against "those who say that the universe and its maker are evil" (Ennead 2.9) remain valid. I would emphasize in particular his point that it's a bit silly to claim that one is elevated above not just the common run of humankind but even the gods themselves by some sort of secret "knowledge" without having first attained to even a minimal mastery of true philosophy and the ordinary virtues.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home