Hi Heart&Mind —
As far as I know, "Gnosticism" can refer to either Gnostic Christianity or as an umbrella term for multiple knowledge seeking path with ties to early Christianity. I'm more concerned with the latter, but anyone with answers feel free to answer.
OK. Two things to start ...
I would say that 'gnosis' as such is common to every religious tradition, and is defined accordingly, under the hermeneutic of its own tradition; thus there is Christian gnosis, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Brahminic, etc ... thus we have Paul warning Timothy: "O Timothy, keep that (gnosis) which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge (gnosis) falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20)
'Gnosticism' (with a Cap 'G') implies the various streams of thought in the 2nd century of the Christian era, which was basically a very poor synthesis of Platonism and Christianity. It's what happens when someone tries to merge two things together, without really understanding either of them.
Gnosticism is overwhelmingly anthropocentric in its view of the gods (Plato's complaint against the pantheon on Olympus fits well). It was a populist movement, and the focus was on the Gnostic Master, on whom his disciples were utterly dependent ... in short, it's the worst type of religion.
1.) Does Gnosticism have to be inherently dualistic?
Dualism is regarded as one of the tenets that 'define' gnosticism. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, was claimed to be a 'gnostic gospel' (most famously by Elaine Pagels), but scholars have rejected that view, as GoT has its own unique outlook, and does not 'tick the boxes' of the common gnostic streams.
Are there any non-dualistic streams of thought in Gnosticism? Are there any that might resemble Vishishtadvaita from Hinduism?
I can't speak for Hinduism, but I'm not aware of any non-dual streams.
Another 'staple' of gnosticism is that the material world is evil, and has no place in paradise. Most of humanity belongs to the material world (the hylics) and are bound for perdition, there is nothing that can be done to save them. A few, the psychics, can ascend to the higher realms
if they are lucky enough to meet and become the disciple of a pneumatic (who are very rare), if not, then they, too, are doomed. Only the pneumatics are saved, they have the spark and are thus guaranteed, and no matter what they do, they will ascend. Law and morality, which belongs to the material world, does not apply to them.
2.) What exactly are the Demiurge and Sophia?
Well these ideas were lifted from Platonism:
"From Plato come their (the Gnostics) punishments, their rivers of the underworld and the changing from body to body; as for the plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realm – the Authentic Existent, the Intellectual-Principle, the Second Creator and the Soul – all this is taken over from the
Timaeus." Plotinus, Ennead 2.9.6.
Plotinus goes on: "For, in sum, a part of their doctrine comes from Plato; all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own have been picked up outside of the truth."'
In Plato, the Demiurge is good wishing good on his creation. Gnosticism contends that the Demiurge is not only the originator of evil, but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation: "
Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally referred to as "
Against the Gnostics").
Sophia means 'Wisdom' in Greek thought, and is feminine, one of the four Cardinal Virtues for Plato. Gnosticism tends to see Sophia in light of the Hebraic Eve, and in most systems Sophia is the source of evil, she brings about a 'fall' that leads to the creation of the material world.
In some texts, Sophia tries to over-reach herself (echoes of Eve) which leads to her cataclysmic fall from the Pleroma. Fear and anguish of losing her life results in matter and soul accidentally come into existence. The creation of the (evil) Demiurge (Yaldabaoth: "Son of Chaos") is also a mistake spoken of as an 'abortion' and other such terms. The Demiurge proceeds to create the physical world in which we live, ignorant of Sophia, who nevertheless manages to infuse some spiritual sparks or pneuma into his creation.
The whole story reads like the highest insights of Greek intellectual thought churned out by script-writers of a very low-brow soap.
3.) Can one be apart of an orthodox or "official" Christian denomination and still also identify as Gnostic? Or at least have theological influence from it?
Well, as I said, gnosis is a component of every religion, but why anyone would want to introduce Gnostic ideas into Christianity escapes me ... Christianity (C) says all can be saved, Gnosticism (G) says most are already lost; C says God is among you and within you (immediately immanent), G says God is infinitely distant, indeed absent (absolutely transcendent) ... so where C says yes, G says no.
4.) How would you counteract criticisms that Gnosticism is a "depressing" or "material denying" path?
You can't. It is.
5.) Branching from 4, does Gnosticism literally deny the material world? In that the physical world does not actually exist?
It doesn't deny its existence, far from it. It asserts its existence, but it also asserts that the material world is the product of evil, and is therefore inherently evil, and has no place in the Pleroma.
Pleroma means 'fullness', from the Greek verb 'to fill', so in Christian thought creation is the fullness of God — as the Hymn in Colossians, which scholars agree is an early Christian hymn that the author of Colossians (most likely not Paul) includes and then explains.
Paul in the Epistles believed penned by him uses the word many times (Ephesians, Romans, 1 Corinthians). The word is used in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy.
Creation is no part of the Pleroma in Gnostic thought. It's inherently evil and beyond salvation.
In Christian thought Creation is
theophany, a manifestation of God that 'groans in its labour' as we journey into Christ. When man 'fell' he sundered the essential and inherent oneness of creation, and it's oneness in God, by choosing to separate himself from it, to know himself alone. Too late he realised he is not 'alone' but is part of the 'all'. He only rtealised that after he had lost it.
When he recovers that sense of oneness, which is love, then we shall see, in that moment, Creation (as if) anew.
6.) I've gotten a general impression that Gnostics tend to be anti-science. Is this inherently so?
Well that is so from our viewpoint that chooses to oppose science and religion, forgetting that theology, metaphysics, ontology, meontology and indeed pure philosophy are themselves sciences! It's just that Gnosticism lacks a rational basis and cannot argue its case through the sciences, because it lacks the rigour they require.
For the Gnostics, for example, the gods like Sophia seem subject to the worst human vices!
The Christian God, no. The Gnostic deities — Sophia and the Demiurge, are.
8.) Are heaven and hell literally real or are they more symbolic?
Well they are real states, but spoken of in 'symbolic' terms. I think 'symbol' is the wrong term. They are signifiers of certain eschatalogical states. Even Buddhism, with is apparently non-theist, speaks of heaven and hell, saints and demons, etc. and deploys the same imagery (peace and bliss, fire and suffering).
Heaven is the sign of being 'all in all'. Hell is its opposite.
Fire is always associated with extinction, in that the fire consumes the substance of which it feeds, and reduces it to nothing, whereas grace, as a fire, purifies and returns the substance to its perfect state, which is what 'hell' does in the Christian tradition.
9.) What is the nature of Christ? Is he the divine savior and son of God? Or more of a Promethean/Luciferian archetype?
Well Christ is one person in
two natures – Divine
and human (the unity of spiritual and physical, as declared at the Council of Chalcedon).
It's not that He is an archetype, rather that He is the source of all archetypes. As the Hymn of Colossians explains.
10.) Can one be a non-theistic Gnostic? In that, they apply Gnostic metaphysics, philosophy, and spirituality to their life; but don't necessarily believe in God?
Not really. If you deny the Divine, all you're left with is the material, which they see as evil. so a 'non-theistic Gnostic' believes in only evil, but then is at a loss to explain what evil is, beyond social mores. Again, Gnosticism is marked by a lack of metaphysical, philosophical and spiritual rationality, precisely because it is crippled by its over-arching sense of evil. It founders on its own incoherent illogic.
To understand a proper Christian gnosis, the master is Paul. If we equate western 'gnosis' with eastern 'jnani' – the Way or Yoga of Knowledge – then Paul's your man as he does so explicitly in his writings. John, of course, is the Gospel of Gnosis – the Logos is the source of Gnosis – but then his is the Gospel of the other yogas too, as in Him Christ is evidently God, and embodies the Knowledge of God (the way of the gnostic or jnani), the devotion to God (the faith or bhaktic) and every other Yoga ... as do all the Scriptures.
John (and the Johannine author of the Epistles) is writing to keep the Christian gnostic 'on line' and preserves him or her from a dualist and thus erroneous reading of Paul's gnostic teachings, which was evidently happening at Ephesus.
A précis of Christian gnosis in Colossians:
Intro:
"As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ; Who also hath manifested to us your love in the spirit (
pneuma). Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge (
epignosis, 'precise and correct knowledge') of his will (
thelema), in all wisdom (
sophia), and spiritual understanding (
pneumatikos synesis): That you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing; being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge (
epignosis) of God:
Hymn:
Strengthened with all might, according to the power of his glory,
in all patience and longsuffering with joy,
Giving thanks to God the Father,
who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,
and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,
In whom we have redemption through his blood,
the remission of sins;
Who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church,
who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
that in all things he may hold the primacy:
Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father,
that all fullness (
pleroma) should dwell;
And through him to reconcile all things unto himself,
making peace through the blood of his cross,
both as to the things that are on earth,
and the things that are in heaven."
Colossians 1:8-20
It is a Christian metaphysic in a nutshell.
