Gnosticism and Eastern Religion

Gnosticism and Buddhism, generated using AI

The early Christian Church was split between the proto-orthodox and the gnostics. These two groups somewhat overlapped and blurred together in the earliest days. The proto-orthodox loosely correspond to mainstream Christianity in all its various forms. The gnostics, on the other hand, had a radically different interpretation of scripture. The problem of evil—how evil exists in a world created by an all-powerful, benevolent God—was solved in gnostic cosmology by denying that the creator god is, in fact, all-powerful and benevolent. Nevertheless, the gnostics didn’t deny the biblical account. They largely used the same scriptures but interpreted them differently (though there are additional scriptures that were exclusively used by gnostics). The account of the Garden of Eden and the “fall” in Genesis is taken at face value by the gnostics. They read it as literally true, as did the proto-orthodox, but they interpreted it differently. God, according to the gnostics, is the bad guy and the serpent is the hero of the narrative. The forbidden fruit is gnosis, enlightenment.

To the gnostics, the creator is actually a fallen being (though often viewed as having been subsequently redeemed), who is neither all-powerful nor fully benevolent. He is an arrogant demiurge who believed himself to be the Supreme Being. However, the demiurge was mistaken. He is not the Supreme God. The world is imperfect because it was created by a flawed and imperfect being. We are actually immortal souls trapped in material bodies in this fallen world, doomed to be reborn (reincarnated) again and again until we find our way back to the Ultimate Truth through gnosis (enlightenment). In many ways, the gnostic movement resembles the Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) and Buddhist views that come from the Far East.

It should be noted that the ultimate being in gnosticism is the Monad (the One) and is called Bythos (the Abyss), and is spoken of in apophatic terms. This could be interpreted as akin to the Dao in Taoism or the ultimate truth as “emptiness” in Buddhism or even as Brahman in Advaita Vedanta. It’s also worth noting that Buddha was actually one of the four main prophets in Manichaean gnosticism.

The gnostic theologian Basilides wrote:

“There was a time when there was nothing, but ‘nothing’ was not anything existent. Simply and plainly, without any sophistry, there was absolutely nothing. When I say ‘was,’ I do not mean that anything ‘was,’ but I say it in order to signify what I want to show—I mean that there was absolutely nothing. What is called by a name is not absolutely ineffable; we may, however, call it ineffable, but it is not ineffable, for the truly ineffable is not ineffable but ‘above every name which is named’ (Ephesians 1:21). Names are not sufficient for designating all the objects in the world, because they are innumerable; names are inadequate. I do not undertake to find proper names for all. Instead, by understanding without speech one must receive the properties of the things named. Homonyms have produced trouble and error for those who hear. Since, then, there was nothing—no matter, no substance, no nonsubstance, nothing simple, nothing complex, nothing not understood, nothing not sensed, no man, no angel, no God, not anything that is named or perceived through anything which can be defined more subtly than anything else—the nonexistent God wished, without intelligence, without sense, without will, without choice, without passion, without desire, to make a Universe. I say that he ‘wished’ for the sake of saying something, but it was actually also without wish, without intelligence, without sense; and I say ‘universe’ in reference not to the one with breadth and divisibility which came into existence later and continued to exist, but to the seed of that universe...”

The clear split between gnosticism and proto-orthodoxy came some time before the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Intellectuals like Irenaeus (b. 130AD) and Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165AD) had tried to set the orthodox position apart from the gnostic views and drive home that the two positions were mutually exclusive. By the time of Nicaea, the proponents of gnosticism and proto-orthodoxy had mostly settled into separate churches. Which school of thought is actually what Jesus himself taught is debatable and a good case can be made for both. It’s also plausible that Christ had an exoteric and an esoteric doctrine, teaching something like proto-orthodoxy to the public but something like gnosticism to his closest disciples.

One form of gnostic Christianity, Manichaeism, may actually have been more popular than mainstream (orthodox) Christianity for several centuries. And gnostic sects continued to exist up until the Protestant Reformation. (Technically, there are still gnostics around but relatively few.)

While the meditative and mystical traditions of the gnostics and proto-orthodox were likely very similar in practice, they had radically different views on cosmology, metaphysics, human nature, and the afterlife. I imagine that the meditative tradition of the gnostics likely resembled the hesychast practices in the modern Orthodox Church, but likely mixed with some more Pentecostal-style elements.