The Gnostic Stranger In Upanishadic Thought
by Alexander Rivera

A cursory reading of various texts contained within the Nag Hammadi Codices when compared to the ideas and themes fundamental to the Indian Vedanta and Upanishadic tradition, seems to illustrate shared parallels and even a cross-pollination of sophisticated spiritual and philosophical thought. I will explore the primary text Allogenes (“The Most High Stranger” or “Foreigner”; NHCXI, 3) which belongs to a family of other Platonizing Sethian treatises or apocalypses^[1] including Marsanes (NHC X, 1), Zostrianos (NHC VIII, 1) and the Three Steles of Seth (NHC VII, 5). These treatises describe a visionary, contemplative ascension to the Ultimate deity, the “Unknowable One”. They are all highly meditative, initiatory tracts on Gnostic theurgy.

Allogenes, written in Coptic, but more than likely originally written in Koine Greek, was discovered in 1945 along with several other leather-bound codices found in an urn near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The existing copy was made during the fourth century, but the original may date back to the second century. Unlike the teachings of most conventional Gnostic groups, the content of Allogenes is not specifically anti-cosmic yet it retains the matter-spirit dichotomy typical of Gnostic cosmology. Likewise, Vedic mysticism isn’t anti-cosmic either while having an unshakable focus on the transcendent. However, I will argue this is directly related to the contextual intent of Allogenes. The content of Allogenes, unlike texts such as the Apocryphon of John, has less to do with cosmogony and more to do with metaphysics of the spiritual universe and theurgy.^[2] To my knowledge, there has not yet been a textual analytical comparison of the material presented by the Platonizing Sethian authors of Allogenes and the eastern mysticism presented in texts such as hymns of the Rigveda and the Upanishads, expressed in ancient Sanskrit.^[3] I will not be focusing greatly on a possible historical connection between the two religions, but instead focus on their theological essence.

Allogenes’ Apophatic Initiation

In references to theurgy, “God-working,” contained in texts similar to Allogenes, there also some parallels with their contemporaries and philosophical competitors of the time, namely Plotinus and other Neo-Platonic philosophers who were familiar with groups such as the Sethians or Archontics.^[4] Of course, the ultimate goal of any theurgist and mystic is the soul’s ascent and return to its stellar origin. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to compare these to Hindu practices of highly meditative contemplation that would contribute to the goal of self-liberation or realization in the path of austerity.

In Allogenes, the highly puzzling, philosophically heavy, revelatory text describes the visionary contemplative ascension to the Ultimate deity, the “Unknowable One”. The text itself also shares a great degree of philosophical sophistication that mirrors an earlier text^[5] called the Apocryphon of John where the author employs “apophatic” (negative) terminology to describe its extreme emphasis on the impersonal nature and utter transcendence of the ineffable first principle because it is the only way to assign descriptive human language to the ultimate deity. “He is primary revelation and knowledge of himself, as it is he alone who knows himself. Since he is not one of those that exist, but is another thing, he is superior to superlatives, even in comparison to what is his and not his.”^[6] The Valentinian Tripartate Tractate expresses a similar exposition on negative theology: “It is impossible for anyone to conceive of him or think of him. Or can anyone approach there, toward the exalted one, toward the preexistent in the proper sense? But all the names conceived or spoken about him are presented in honor, as a trace of him, according to the ability of each one of those who glorify him.”^[7]

Interestingly enough, Allogenes lacks any interest in the material world as there is no mention of any demiurgical God responsible for its creation, who apes spiritual humanity and works in opposition to the Supreme, Unknowable God—which is a chief characteristic we see in the earlier radical anthropological dualism so apparent in Gnostic theology. Of course, Gnostic dualism only applies to the nature of the world and its separation from the Divine. There also is no call for any specific advocacy for asceticism or a libertine ethic. Rather, there is an advocating for spiritual contemplation of inner experience through philosophical study, quiet reflection away from external distractions and ritual preparations that may have involved practices such as fasting, celibacy, baptism and the invocation of the sacred names or “holy vowels” in the form of vowel vocalization. This is comparable to the mystical and sacred syllable “Aum” or “Om” extant in various Indian traditions.^[8] We also see this phenomenon in texts such as The Gospel of the Egyptians. For Allogenes, the material world is simply seen as a secondary distraction from spiritual fortification.

Allogenes, like some other Sethian scriptures, is said to have been authored by Seth himself.^[9] “Allogenes” was identified with Seth by a group called “Archontics.” According to the Panarion of Epiphanius, the Bishop of the fourth century Salamis, Allogenes/Seth was said to have seven sons called the “Allogeneis”,although Seth is never named in the text but instead was probably symbolized.^[10] Epiphanius also claimed that the group was spread around Egypt and Palestine.^[11] The earthly protagonist in the text, Allogenes or the “Foreigner” is in a sense a divine incarnation or avatar of Adamas, the heavenly archetype of Adam, Seth or the pre-existent Autogenes-Christ in the Apocryphon of John. Although he is depicted as a very human figure, as in clothed in the flesh, with a very long life-span, Allogenes is awakened to his own deity through multiple revelations imparted by otherworldly beings and being seized in a subsequent heavenly journey by the means of an eternal light-garment into the supernal aeons and finally into the realm of an unnamable supreme power.

The Gnostic aspirant is symbolized through the character of Allogenes. Accordingly, the Gnostic is one who is involved in the immortal life through spiritual inspiration, detachment from the “realm of appearance”, and the heavenly ascent of the mind. The Gnostic aspires to a transcendent knowledge that is both inherent within the human aspirant who reverts to his or herself, but also as a “reflection and an image” of the supreme principle.^[12] It is this special form of knowledge or awareness that grants entrance into the final gateway of the pleroma or fullness. Indeed, Allogenes is a model of a person who achieves philosophical divinization.

Through revelation discourse,^[13] Allogenes relays the secret mysteries to his son or disciple Messos, who symbolizes the recipient or reader of the discourse, by claiming five spiritual revelations^[14] and visions as being channeled by an “all-glorious” luminary revealer named “Youel,” among other revealers. After these five revelations are received, Allogenes enters a one-hundred year period of solitude dedicated to meditation and preparation in his own absolute self-knowledge in order to behold the Ultimate deity. He relays his experiences of visionary withdrawal and anxiety, saying he fears “that my doctrine may have become something beyond what is fitting.” Allogenes becomes a recipient of Youel’s revelatory knowledge concerning puzzling and even baffling names such as the “Triple-Male Child,” “Protophanes-Harmedon,” “Salamex”, “Semen”, and “Kalyptos”, all of whom can be interpreted as Gnostic “aeons” and “revealers”.

The Sethian supreme deity in Allogenes is called “the spiritual Invisible Triple-Power,” who is hypostasized into three aspects, in a kind of Gnostic Trinity: “Vitality,” “Mentality” (Intellect), and “That-which-is.” The middle being, Intellection, is equated with the noetic realm of the Barbelo Aeon, from which the entirety of the Aeons, or eternal “truths”, come into existence. These powers all dwell in a salient, perfect harmony, indicating a monistic character in the Sethian metaphysical realm without applying that monism to the physical cosmos. Karen King emphasizes this fact in the discussion of the text Marsanes: “The active principle of this transcendent Being maintains a basically monistic scheme, while admitting a kind of dualism into the lower world. Nonetheless, matter is clearly not evil by nature because it has the capacity to be saved.”^[15]

It is perhaps pointless to understand every phrase or word in Allogenes in a limited, literal sense due to the highly complex, contemplative and mystical nature of the text. Perhaps it is better to understand it through intuition without the compulsion to rely on reason alone. And indeed, this is the ultimate point in which Allogenes drives at in the idea that even after achieving a special spiritual acquaintance, human limitations of living flesh still prevents additional speculation and vision regarding the comprehension of the Supreme and ineffable Source. After all, John D. Turner describes Allogenes as a “contemplative ascent leading to enlightenment.”^[16] To “understand” the vision of this object is a different, philosophical task altogether. Nothing on earth or in the heavens can teach the meaning of God, other than the eternal presence that exists “within me a stillness of silence, and I heard the Blessedness whereby I knew <my> proper self.”^[17] This means Allogenes is instructed, during the course of his heavenly ascent, to behold an inner vision, to “know,” by “seeking himself,” by “gazing on,” by “withdrawing,” inward towards the deepest core of himself.

Despite Allogenes’ highly philosophical and speculative nature, the text gives a stern and stunning remark in regards to mental activity in perceiving God: “Cease to hinder, by seeking after incomprehensible matters, the inactivity that exists in you”.^[18] Another central theme that intertwines with apophatic theology is one of “learned ignorance”.^[19] Allogenes is warned to be in a state of “un-knowing” and be “ignorant of him” when he receives a “primary revelation of the Unknown One,” meaning that he should not exercise any intellectual or thought activity lest he disturbs the silently passive yet fixed state in which he can receive this “primary revelation”. Through negative ontological descriptions, supplemented with affirmative, positive theology, this ultimate vision of the Invisible Spirit can be recognized—initiating a formless union between the “object” and the “observer”, the “knower” and the “known”, or, in this case, the “unknown” . Elsewhere, it also states accordingly: “Truly, you have listened firmly (to us) concerning all these things. Do not seek to understand anything more. Rather, go. We are not acquainted with whether the unrecognizable possesses angels or gods; nor whether the still has anything within it but stillness, i.e. its own self; and so it is not... Nor is it fitting to become dispersed many more times by seeking (to understand).”^[20] This apophatic and transcendent account found in both Allogenes and The Tripartite Tractate mirror Arjuna’s report of the Divine Vision in the Bhagavad Gita, XI:4-6:

I see thee crowned with a diadem and armed with mace and chakra, a mass of splendor, darting light on all sides; difficult to behold, shining in every direction with light immeasurable, like the burning fire or glowing sun. Thou art the supreme inexhaustible Being, the end of effort, changeless, the Supreme Spirit of this universe, the never-failing guardian of eternal law: I esteem thee Purusha, I see thee without beginning middle, or end, of infinite power with arms innumerable, the sun and moon thy eyes, thy mouth a flaming fire, overmastering the whole universe with thy majesty. 

Finally, Allogenes concludes with an express command to conceal the text in a mountain guarded by a demonic guardian, the “Dreadful One”. Allogenes reveals that his revelations were “proclaimed in my presence within me. And first I received them in a great silence, and I understood myself.”^[21] The last line of Allogenes implies that the text is a final “book” in a series: “…proclaim them, O my son Messos, as the seal for all the books of Allogenes.”^[22]

Platonic Influence

The above quotation seems to agree with Epiphanius’ remarks that there are multiple instances of works under this title. E.M. Yamauchi takes notice of the overt “philosophic influences” in the texts mentioned above, “including a fragment of Plato’s Republic and traces of Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism…”^[23] Indeed, there are overt influences of Platonic sources extant in Gnostic theology that can be traced back to Plato’s Symposium, which encourages one to contemplate and love the object of Beauty and desire itself as a purely abstract concept in increasing levels. Unlike much later texts such as Allogenes, Plato develops his metaphysical theory in the world of the senses by focusing on Platonic Eros and not by pursuing philosophy as a solitary meditative activity, but through a dialectical process similar to Socratic dialogues.^[24] This is achieved through the transforming an older man’s attraction to a younger, beautiful boy into the love of a beautiful soul and finally into the appreciation and enjoyment of abstract ideas. This is reflective of Greek values which could recognize only the elements of pleasure and aesthetic beauty, which are but lower formulations of divinity. Plato’s erotic philosophy is specifically a counter to normative Greek values that look at sensation above all else. At the final stage of this process as indicated in the Symposium, there is indeed an ascendant vision of Plato’s “Realm of Forms” or “Ideas”^[26]:

He who has been instructed thus far in the things of love, and who has learned to see the beautiful in due order and succession, when he comes toward the end will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty (and this, Socrates, is the final cause of all our former toils)-a nature which in the first place is everlasting, not growing and decaying, or waxing and waning ; secondly, not fair in one point of view and foul in another, or at one time or in one relation or at one place fair, at another time or in another relation or at another place foul, as if fair to some and-foul to others, or in the likeness of a face or hands or any other part of the bodily frame, or in any form of speech or knowledge, or existing in any other being, as for example, in an animal, or in heaven or in earth, or in any other place; but beauty absolute, separate, simple, and everlasting, which without diminution and without increase, or any change, is imparted to the ever-growing and perishing beauties of all other things.^[26]

Alcinous, the Middle Platonist philosopher of the 2nd century C.E., in the book Didaskalikos holds a different position than the ideas expressed above in that, although the author expresses himself in negative-theological terminology, he also holds that God can be perceived through the intellect or mind:

(4) God is ineffable and graspable only by the intellect, as we have said, since he is neither genus, nor species, nor differentia, nor does he possess any attributes, neither bad (for it is improper to utter such a thought), nor good (for he would be thus by participation in something, to wit, goodness) nor indifferent (for neither is this an accordance with the concept we have of him), nor yet qualified (for he is not endowed with quality, nor is this peculiar perfection due to qualification) nor unqualified (for he is not deprived of any quality which might accrue to him). Further, he is not a part of anything, nor is he the same as anything or different from anything; for no attribute is proper to him, in virtue of which he could be distinguished from other things.^[27]

The Neo-Platonic teacher, Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 232/300-305 AD) also believed that a God beyond being and comprehension was accessible through the intellect and that philosophers could gain access to divinity through their own mental power so that the soul’s embodied awareness could be completely transformed by philosophical contemplation or “theoria.” To Porphyry, this was indeed the most effective path that one could use to sojourn to the gods by beholding this purely intellectual vision.^[28]This tradition of the Divine Vision can be found in other sources, especially in Plato’s Phaedrus.^[29] The differences between the Gnostics and Plotinus’ theological positions are well established. Yet, despite these differences, Plotinus considered the Gnostics to be his personal friends as indicated in Enneads 2.9.10, the theological similarities they share are there as mentioned earlier.^[30] Plotinus, however, disliked and mocked their static dualism and their defamation of Plato’s cosmic craftsman—the Demiurge but in a moderate tone in comparison to a Church Father like Irenaeus who desired to crush his Gnostic opponents, theologically speaking by appealing to Biblical pedantry^[31]. It is not surprising that both Plotinus and Porphyry regarded the Sethian apocalypses or revelations as mere nonsensical “fictions” and “forgeries” since they made appeals to religious and mythical figures.^[32] And finally, Plato’s Parmenides, also stresses God as being the One beyond being and inconceivable infinite that exceeds all words or understanding. The parallels between Parmenides and Allogenes are numerous and legion.^[33]

While this approach to gaining the Divine Vision was well established in the Platonic tradition and of course by Plotinus as well, it nevertheless is especially denied in Gnostic texts such as the Apocryphon of John and Allogenes, since they both characterize God as completely inaccessible by the human intellect since it is completely transcendent and alien to the material world. Allogenes even goes so far as to say that the knowledge of God is “not-knowing knowledge” as well as being “ignorance that sees him”.^[34]

Gnostic Doctrine

All of this begs the question of how groups such as the Gnostics claim to have special knowledge of a God that is virtually inaccessible and beyond all being while denying it to others?^[35] The answer to this can be found in the Apocryphon of John. The text relays the account of an inferior creator god and ruler of the physical world who usurped a portion of his mother’s, the aeon Sophia’s, divine fire and breathed it into Adam’s soul as a trick of Sophia in order to recover her creative power that was stolen when Ialdabaoth disappeared into the void and established himself as the Demiurge. This divine fire is passed on from Adam and Eve, to Seth from whom the Gnostic race had descended. The material body of Adam was created as a doppelganger counterfeit material body in imitation of the divine man’s reflection in the chaotic waters by the demiurgical God, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth possessing the divine core fastened it to the “tomb of the molded body with which the robbers clothed the human, the chain of oblivion. And in this way, the human become mortal.”^[36] This myth suggests that the inner selves of humans are consubstantial to the Godhead, in that they are able to “know” or be aware of this fact through self-knowledge and live a life accordingly as opposed to those who live a life asleep in the fetters of inherited ignorance. It is through this myth the question of why humans are forced to live in such a compromised position in an imperfect and corruptible world, if such a good and perfect God exists, is answered. And indeed, the most acrimonious and scandalous elements of Gnostic theology take shape in its crude account of misotheism and radical dualism.

Although there are variations in the Gnostic myth of origins, there are repeating concepts that permeate all the different Gnostic schools of thought. In stark contrast from orthodox theology, the Gnostics believed in two Gods, the true Supreme unified nature and a subordinate, inferior and anthropomorphic creator of the cosmos identified with the jealous God of the Old Testament in contrast with the loving, merciful Father revealed by Jesus Christ. This God is often addressed as “Father” in Gnostic literature, but was almost always thought of as an androgynous being. All spiritual activity in the Pleroma is a consequence of his ontological plentitude, projected through emanation, and he is the completeness and source of all spiritual life. He is a complete antithesis to the impure, material universe being that the cosmos was not projected by the Absolute since he is made of a formless fiery anti-matter. Rather, the material cosmos is a product of the hostile Chief Archon, aggressively created as a grotesque imitation of the perfect realm of light. This radical dualism which posits the spiritual and material to be qualitatively fundamental in that they can never be reunited in their antithetical, opposite natures like light to darkness. The universe serves as a vast and bungled prison-like labyrinth for the sparks of light left behind after the divine catastrophe, a kind of rupture or disharmony that occurred in the realm of God. It is defined by unfathomable darkness for the spirit.^[37]

In between the divine realm and its transient shadow called the universe are multiple levels of cosmic spheres and “psychic” rulers closely associated with the seven planets, including the sun and the moon as well as the twelve zodiacal constellations. In an epic struggle, they all serve to separate man from God. These archons and their Chieftain, the petty, incompetent and tyrannical Ialdabaoth, who, as a product of fault and ignorance, believes himself to be the Most High, serve as gatekeepers over the physical universe through their iron manacles of Fate.  The spirit seeks freedom from its lost, wingless and exiled condition, but is frightened back by these gatekeepers which bar the passage of souls from ascension. The body is a product of cosmic powers, shaped in the image of a divine primal man and animated with physical forces—namely appetites, desires and passions which mirror those produced by the lower Sophia which she experienced at the fall when she erred from the divine realm and into the outer darkness. Through the dark abyss, she endlessly searches and laments, repenting of her labors and passions that crystallized into matter which produced the four single elements that make up the cosmos. The soul too is a product of cosmic powers which enchains the spirit under the weight of matter and destiny.^[38]

The only possible means for this spirit to awaken to its alienated existential condition is redemption through “gnosis”, or an intimate knowledge^[39] provided through the means of revelation within, imparted from an outside source from the cosmos: from the Savior who was totally unknown before the advent of his ministry in a penetrating descent to mankind to preach the word of the Unknowable Father and to expose and even curse the Demiurge and his powers as false gods. This revelatory knowledge is imparted from the activity of the Savior is what reconciles estranged spirit to its root and origin within the Unknowable Father in a dynamic, eternal state of repose. The pneumatic or spiritual self is a stranger to the world and is even filled with a special hatred towards its hellish shackles interwoven in the fetters of matter.

This contempt is a two-way street as absolutely everything that is created is set against the uncreated spirit. Likewise, the world is enemy ground for the Gnostic due to his radically world-denying spirit. Like the figure of Allogenes, the Gnostic possesses the keys of gnosis, which strive to release the chains that bind the persisting and uncreated “inner man”^[40] from the tyranny of the lower world to ultimately achieve the apocatastasis or “restoration” into the uncreated, eternal realm. Upon mortal death, the soul travels upward and leaves at each sphere its “vestment”. Stripped of foreign accretions the soul is inevitably reunited with the Godhead. This liberation of human souls is also a liberation of God, since these seeds of light are co-substantial to God. When this process of liberation is completed, the entire material cosmos will either be annihilated or be subject to eternal, unmixed darkness.

Enter the Upanishads and Vedic Mysticism

The biggest question that was raised in the beginning of this paper is how, from an ontological perspective, all of this relays into the world of Hindu mysticism that can be found in texts such as the Upanishads? The answer is neither simple nor straight-forward. The very word “Upanishad” means “at the feet of…” which refers to initiatory instruction of the Divine Vision. The mystics of India believed there were special techniques of physical and intellectual purification through which the ego could be neutralized by the acquisition of cosmic consciousness which could lead to the Divine Vision. There was a need for initiation into secrets of their esoteric ways, unless conveyed between a guru and his student much like the figures of Allogenes and Messos. These disciplines and doctrines could not be conveyed through logical or dialectical means but instead adopted through paradoxical aphorisms and cryptic language which transmitted the secret of existence itself.

In Upanishadic thought, the Ultimate reality for “Advaita” mystics is known as “Nirguna Brahman”, the impersonal Absolute devoid of any attributes or affirmative qualities. It is beyond normal conception. “No one can grasp Him above, across, or in the middle. There is no likeness of Him.”^[41] The Rigveda makes a similar declaration: “At first was neither Being nor Nonbeing. There was not air nor yet sky beyond. What was wrapping? Where? In whose protection? Was Water there, unfathomable deep? There was no death then, nor yet deathlessness; of night or day there was not any sign.”^[42] The Vedas, which means “sacred knowledge,” present the concept of an all-pervasive transcendent spiritual principle, Brahman, as an unconditional reality with no empirical distinctions from an acosmic viewpoint. In the Upanishads, Brahman is described as sat, Existence or Consciousness absolute, and ananda, Bliss absolute. The essential doctrine of the non-duality or monism of the divine being is set forth, whereas its infinite multiplicity is illusory, created directly from this Supreme Consciousness as a means to initiate different modes of experience. Everything is accordingly a veiled mask of the infinite.

Advaita’s monism is applied to the Ultimate deity. It makes no affirmations about the nature of unity and must not be taken to imply anything like the western idea of monisms, pantheisms, or panentheisms we see so apparent in New Age thought. Neither is pantheism a doctrine associated with Gnosticism. Of course, this does not change the point that the material universe is viewed in Advaita as being non-essential and, thus, not “real” in an absolute sense. It can be seen as a plastic-wrap overlay on reality which dissolves once one has “seen through it.” It is only divine gnosis or “Hnana,”^[43] which can initiate the aspirant into the true reality beyond the entanglement of the eternal in matter, which was ultimately seen as a phantasm or “Maya”.^[44] The highest metaphysical idea is that Brahman and the Atman were amalgamated in a unity—one can use the analogy of the droplet falling into a vast ocean.

The “Atman” originally meant “breathing,” or to “pervade, reach up too” which abides in the “Cidakasa” or “consciousness space”—a subtle realm of consciousness in the thousand-petaled lotus (sahasrara) and/or in the heart. This Atman is identical to the Absolute (Brahman), according to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta expounded by Adi Shankara. Like the message of Allogenes, this formless breath cannot be known through mental activity or the ego-consciousness. Yet, there is no experience without it. It is the basis of all life, yet cannot be proved itself, but only perceived by the beholder through experiential knowledge or “jnana” (gnosis). “As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of taste, thus indeed the Self has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge.”^[45] To realize its existence is equated as an experience of an “inner light”, which is sudden and instantaneous, “like the lightening which flashes forth.”^[46] It is at first a mystery, hidden and difficult to find, but it is ultimately distributed as a secret divine revelation to the aspirant. “He is revealed by the negative teachings of the Vedanta, discriminative wisdom and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection.”^[47]

Like the “indivisible” Sethian Invisible Spirit which is the “one who is at rest”^[48] featured in Allogenes, this transcendent deity cannot be known and impossible to perceive unless it is given a process of an apophatic revelation or through the cultivation of “unknowable knowledge” revealed in an Indian chant or mantra called “neti, neti” (“not this, not this” or “no, no”) which is explained in the Avadhut Gita: “Thus has the Shruti spoken of Atman; “That Thou art.” Of the illusory world, born of the five physical elements, the Shruti says: “Neti, neti” (not this, not this).”^[49] The god Shiva (who is explicitly named in the Avadhut Gita) channels through the author, taking on the first person:

I am pure knowledge, imperishable, infinite. I know neither joy nor pain; whom can they touch? The actions of the mind, good and evil, the actions of the body, good and evil, the actions of the voice, good and evil, exist not in me (Atman). I am the nectar which is knowledge absolute; beyond the range of the senses I am. The mind is as space, embracing all. I am beyond mind. In Reality the mind has no independent existence.^[50]

While there is no “divine catastrophe” in Hinduism elements of these repeating archetypes and themes can be found in the Vedic tradition. Each “jiva” or soul is viewed as something of a divine catastrophe, insofar as said soul does not realize who it actually is since it has “fallen” into incarnation, thus becoming defiled. It is necessary, therefore, for the soul to progress through a long cycle of sufferings and deaths and rebirths through reincarnation or the transmigration of the soul, depending on the ethical quality of actions (karma) in the preceding life, until it is released from mortal life altogether and enters eternal transcendence and bliss. All of these conceptions have parallels with both Platonic and Gnostic thought.

Furthermore, the identification with the Self as being co-substantial with the divine light is congruent to almost all Gnostic thought in the sense that to “know” oneself at the deepest, perfect core is tantamount to “knowing” the Ultimate deity. It is this point the Vedic and Gnostic traditions meet and agree upon. The identification of the Self as co-substantial to the Godhead is the quintessential teaching of gnosis. And it occurs in India at least give hundred years before Christ’s ministry.

When Gnosis and Vedic Thought Intermingle

Furthermore, there is the idea of a tripartite anthropology according to Gnostic thought which consists of a superior and divine element called the “pnuema” or “nous” as a separable substance resident within the psycho-physical vehicle or envelope, composed of psyche (soul) and the material or hylic body which becomes a burdensome appendage for the formless fire, burning within. In essence, both humans and the cosmos at large are compounded by a plurality of factors while the unity of the spirit world remains constant and immutable. It is this structure of primary dualism or even pluralism, with which the Gnostic Trinity is concerned. The Tripartite Tractate describes these three natures,^[51] accordingly as not only separate elements intermixed but also as different orientations of persons as well as separate qualities held in a pre-deterministic scheme:

The spiritual race, being like light from light and like spirit from spirit, when its head appeared, it ran toward him immediately. It immediately became a body of its head. It suddenly received knowledge in the revelation. The psychic race is like light from a fire, since it hesitated to accept knowledge of him who appeared to it. (It hesitated) even more to run toward him in faith. Rather, through a voice it was instructed, and this was sufficient, since it is not far from the hope according to the promise, since it received, so to speak as a pledge, the assurance of the things which were to be. The material race, however, is alien in every way; since it is dark, it shuns the shining of the light, because its appearance destroys it. And since it has not received its unity, it is something excessive and hateful toward the Lord at his revelation.

Likewise, the three natures can also be found in Upanishadic thought. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna relays the concept of the three gunas or “modes of nature” or “instinct” that are present in all sentient beings. The three natures are sattva, which is buoyant light, illuminating knowledge and happiness; rajas, which is stimulating, mobile, pain, passion and action and finally tamas, which is heaviness, indifference, inertia, error, ignorance and darkness. All jivas and their activities are bound to these three strands of nature, shaping their temperament. Shiva is often depicted holding a trident, representing these same three gunas.

This great Brahman is the womb for all those various forms which are produced from any womb, and I am the Father who provideth the seed. The three great qualities called sattva, rajas, and tamas-- light, or truth, passion or desire, and indifference or darkness -- are born from nature, and bind the imperishable soul to the body, O thou of mighty arms. Of these the sattva quality by reason of its lucidity and peacefulness entwineth the soul to rebirth through attachment to knowledge and that which is pleasant. Know that rajas are of the nature of desire, producing thirst and propensity; it, O son of Kunti, imprisoneth the Ego through the consequences produced from action. The quality of tamas, the offspring of the indifference in nature, is the deluder of all creatures, O son of Bharata; it imprisoneth the Ego in a body through heedless folly, sleep, and idleness. The sattva quality attaches the soul through happiness and pleasure, the rajas through action, and tamas quality surrounding the power of judgment with indifference attaches the soul through heedlessness.^[52]

The deluded despise me in human form, being unacquainted with my real nature as Lord of all things. They are of vain hopes, deluded in action, in reason and in knowledge, inclining to demoniac and deceitful principles. But those great of soul, partaking of the godlike nature, knowing me to be the imperishable principle of all things, worship me, diverted to nothing else.^[53]

It is interesting to note that the Logos, who, in the Valentinian Tripartite Tractate also called the “Lord” and “Savior” of “all those belonging to the one filled with love” sounds closely reminiscent of “Lord Krishna” in the Bhagavad Gita in the above excerpts.^[54] The Sethian text called the Trimorphic Protennoia (NHC XIII, 1) makes a very similar proclamation where the “First Thought” or reflection of the supreme Invisible Spirit called Barbelo describes herself as being spread and manifest directly in the lower world of matter and even the underworld in three modes of being, hence, the title, “trimorphic”.  The Trimorphic Protennoia reads something like a Neo-Platonist allegory where the true God descended into the world of darkness in order to inform humanity about its origin and true nature. It is comparable to the language in the Gospel of John as well as other Sethian works, including Zostrianos among the books of Allogenes, in that they all mention Barbelo.^[55]

I am Protennoia, the Thought that dwells in the Light. I am the movement that dwells in the All, she in whom the All takes its stand, the first-born among those who came to be, she who exists before the All. She (Protennoia) is called by three names [Emphasis mine], although she dwells alone, since she is perfect. I am invisible within the Thought of the Invisible One. I am revealed in the immeasurable, ineffable (things). I am incomprehensible, dwelling in the incomprehensible. I move in every creature.^[56]

Elsewhere the text makes a profound and startling admission in regards to Barbelo’s power permeating throughout the powers that govern the cosmos:

I was dwelling in them in the form of each one. The Archons thought that I was their Christ. Indeed, I dwell in everyone. Indeed, within those in whom I revealed myself as Light, I eluded the Archons. I am their beloved, for in that place I clothed myself as the son of the Archgenitor, and I was like him until the end of his decree, which is the ignorance of Chaos. And among the angels I revealed myself in their likeness, and among the Powers, as if I were one of them; but among the Sons of Man, as if I were a Son of Man, even though I am Father of everyone.^[57]

These passages are worth comparing to the Svetasvatara-Upanishad 1:8 and 4:14 which both relay a similar story:

The Supreme Lord appears as Isvara, omniscient and omnipotent and as the jiva, of limited knowledge and power, both unborn. But this does not deny the phenomenal universe; for there exists further the unborn prakriti, which creates the ideas of the enjoyer, enjoyment and the object. Atman is infinite and all—pervading and therefore devoid of agency. When the seeker knows all these three to be Brahman, he is freed from his fetters. 

By realising Him who is subtler than the subtlest who dwells in the midst of the chaos, who is the Creator of all things and is endowed with many forms, who is the non—dual Pervader of the universe and all good—by realising Him one attains the supreme peace. 

Brahman subsists and manifests himself in a threefold nature, similar to the “Triple-Powered” reflection of the Invisible Spirit, Barbelo.  According to the Kūrma Purāna, Brahman manifests himself into three forms called the “trimurti”: Brahma, the creator-god, Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or agent of transformation.^[58] Furthermore, Barbelo is also comparable to Shakti or Parvati, who is a dynamic feminine emanation of Shiva. The Trimorphic Protennoia however presents a different sort of modalistic trinity in the form of the “Father, Mother and Son.” Dr. John Turner outlines the various roles that Barbelo is ascribed too, which indicates the supra-intellectual nature of the “Unknown Silent One” as the text Marsanes would have it:

As a Father, the masculine Voice of the Thought, she first weakens the grip of the infernal powers on her fallen members. Second, as Mother, the Speech of the Thought, she inaugurates the shift of the ages, and overturns the uncomprehending infernal and celestial powers of the Archigenetor and gives shape to her members. Third, as Son, the Word of the Thought, she replaces the darkened psychic and somatic thought of her members with divine light (i.e. enlightenment) by conferring upon them the baptismal ascent ritual of the Five Seals…^[59]

Brahma, the Demiurge?

As indicated earlier, Brahma was considered to be a male “deva” or deity, a more personalized version of the neuter abstraction of Brahman who is in essence a creator god. He is sometimes presented as a Demiurge carrying out the intentions of Vishnu. The Bhagavad-Gita mentions how Vishnu instructs Brahma to create multiple universes and various kinds of beings, mobile and immobile to populate creation.^[60] Although in early Vedic tradition Brahma was the focus of deity worship, this concept has long passed as he suffered an historical decline in prestige in comparison to other deities such as Vishnu and Shiva, who are seen as more transcendent. In the Matsya Purana, Brahma is birthed or emanated from a lotus flower growing out of Vishnu’s navel while Vishnu himself lies on the cosmic serpent, Anata Shesha, preparing to fashion the world through his mind and body. Another variation of this myth posits Vishnu sleeping upon the abyss and during his slumber a golden egg emerges from the watery depths, in which Brahma eventually breaks open into two pieces, thus creating heaven and earth, and is born. During this process of material creation, Brahma creates four “Catursanas”, or the first four sons. However, they refuse to procreate and instead live as celibate devotees to the Supreme deity. The epic Pitamaha relays the story of Brahma, who produces a beautiful daughter through his own “vital strength” or seminal fluid. Interestingly, he is smitten by her beauty which incites a succession of faces to appear filled with lust. Through the incestuous sexual union of father and daughter, they produce Manu, the first man which is comparable to Adam in Genesis.

Make no mistake—Brahma is not the blind and malicious Ialdabaoth we see in Gnostic texts. Instead he is more of a neutral artificer more congruent to the Demiurge of Neo-Platonic thought.^[61] After all, it is Brahma in which the Supreme deity had “delivered the Vedas to Him.”^[62] Indra also maintains demiurgical qualities as evidenced in the Rigveda, which depicts him as a warrior god of lightning and thunder, comparable to the Greek Ares and Latin Mars.^[63] Every manifestation of Brahma is revealed by “the light that rises and the glory that shines.”^[64] Indeed, the Vedic gods are considered to be manifestations of a single universal substance.

However, there is a story about Brahma’s “fall” in the Vidyesvara Samhita of the Siva Purana (Chapters 6-9) where Brahma and Vishnu compete over who is superior. Both devas visit Shiva appealing for an answer. Shiva assumes the form of a column of fire on the battlefield. Vishnu becomes a boar and searches its root below the earth. Brahma transforms into a swan and searches its top but does not find it. Instead of telling the truth, Brahma falsely claims that he discovered the top of the column of fire. As creator of the universe, Brahma did not want to admit that he could not find the end of the pillar. As he was going up, he saw a “kaita” flower dear to Shiva and asked it to bear false witness to Brahma’s “discovery”. Shiva emerges out from the column of fire and praises Vishnu for telling the truth and offers him worship among the general public equal to his own. Brahma however is punished by having his fifth head being decapitated. Shiva tells Brahma that because of his lie, he will not be honored by the general worshiping public of India with a separate temple. This story indicates a possible duplicitous nature to Brahma, the Demiurge not present in the other Hindu gods.

Contrast in Gnosis and Vedic Thought

The Hindu mystic looks upon material existence as either wholly illusory, being, at best, a divine yet essentially meaningless “play” (lila) of a transcendent deity for the pure joy of it rather than any necessity or specific purpose.^[65] This “play” is made possible through a variation of the veiling illusions of “Maya Shakti” which is personified in feminine terms and provides form in the phenomenal universe in which everyday consciousness has become entangled. Through this notion of lila being employed by Maya Shakti, the attempt to explain human suffering is explored as simply the divine mind as a “free artist” by the creation of worlds and souls to “lead them to ever higher levels of consciousness”.^[66] The reasons for the existence of such an imminent illusion existing in the first place are very much different, however in Gnostic thought, which posits an inherently nihilistic evaluation of the cosmos and human existence when contrasted with the yearning for a spiritual reality reflected in their myths. This stands in stark contrast in what the famous yogi and guru, Sri Aurobindo’s words which reflects a world-positive affirmation: “to support appreciation of the world in a spirit of religious wonder and to sustain a joy in living.”^[67]

Gnosticism, however, holds the cosmos to be a place of deficiency, created and lorded over by monstrous, demonic powers and their leader, the Demiurge. These same archons and powers created the physical body for no other reason but to entomb the divine spark from returning to the purely spiritual and intelligible world of true being. The Apoc. John suggests they created life so that they might be worshiped, that it was Sophia who tricked them into placing the divine fire into humans because they could not otherwise become animated. Ideally for them, the body keeps it hostage as a “cog” in their matrix, tormenting it in systematically insane machinations. In order to stir the unconscious soul from its state of slumber messengers like Youel of Allogenes, descend from the world of Light to reveal the saving gnosis which provides the means for the illumination and deliverance of the divine, “inner man”. This numinous experience is a moment flooded with a sublime remembrance. It gives rise to the conflagration from the “old aeon” of the emptiness of the human condition and into the “new aeon” of a wholly spiritual existence of the fullness.^[68]

The reasoning behind the radical acosmic dualism is reflected in the inherent pessimistic Gnostic attitude regarding the very nature of material existence which is fraught with uncertainty, frustration, despair, suffering and ultimately death since it was forged out of blind arrogance and error.^[69] In fact, the cosmos, according to Papias of Hierapolis, is something of a failed arrangement: “To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says, immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing.”^[70] This is diametrically opposed to the Hindu world-positive view despite their similar declarations of the phenomenal, manifest world being akin to a dream or all-pervading illusion in comparison to the true, un-manifest Absolute. The very idea of the world being a direct product of the Absolute would have been a horrifying anathema to many Gnostic groups. This is the primary reason, among many, that the likes of Plotinus sternly criticized the Gnostics: their loathing for physical reality.

To Plotinus, the first principle or the One is responsible for the good in all things, including matter. The world itself although not perfect, was seen by Plotinus as a place fit to strive for spiritual virtue and reason towards the Good. Even the world, and matter itself, are vigorously insisted upon as eternal by Plotinus, although it can certainly be seen as corruptible and evil in relation to the soul to the extent of it being bound in matter by the likes of he and his contemporaries. In the Enneads, Plotinus equates matter to be evil, the very opposite of the One in every way, even if it is eternal. Paradoxically, the cosmos was seen as harmonious and beneficent in the hierarchy of being. Plotinus thought that matter arranged into an organized system was a good thing, even if matter itself is bad, since organization is a reflection of the divine. ^[71]

Matter is, according to Plotinus, the lowest emanation from the good, and therefore the most detached thing from the good. It’s the exact opposite of the good, since the good is being, but matter is non-being. He disagrees with the Gnostics because they believe matter organized into a system is evil, and the being who organized it (the demiurge), too, is evil. Plotinus thought that the demiurge isn’t evil, but good, for even though he arranged a universe with matter, matter was the only substance he had to work with. And the universe isn’t evil, because even though composed of matter, it, once organized, is a reflection of the good. Plotinus recognized a flaw in the logic of the Gnostics which lead to nihilistic dualism. For example: any sort of personal improvement or progression of any person that dwells in the evil cosmos, conforms to the laws given by the enemy—the creator of the world.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, likewise vigorously denied the goodness of the hierarchy of being and held matter to be perishable and transient as outlined earlier. To them, the world is like what Paul proclaims in 1 Corinthians 7: 31: “For this world in its present form is passing away.” To insist that the material creation was inherently good, worthy of veneration or worst of all—, being a product of the first principle smacked of over-romanticizing and refusal to face reality for what it really is.^[72] Tertullian illustrates this fundamental difference between the dualistic and monistic ideologies:

They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.”^[73]

Tertullian touched on this essential difference between these two schools of thought of the dualism of the Gnostics, beginning with St. Paul’s dualism, and the monism prescribed by Plotinus. The latter was saying that the Creator or World Soul was an agent of a higher being or agency whereas the Gnostics resisted this idea and revealed the creator to be working in opposition of this higher, transcendental being. This controversy raises the perennial problems of reconciling evil with divine providence, something of which were highly contested and debated in Antiquity. Of course, the very idea posited by the question of evil flowing from good is vigorously denied by the radical dualistic theology of various groups such as the Manichaeans, the Marcionites, etc. Again, this distinctly Gnostic deprecation of the creator god and of the world was scandalous to not only pagan thinkers of nobility like Plotinus, who even went as far to suggest that the Gnostic resentment for the world was due to their economic disposition, since if you were highly educated in an upper-class one would not typically be a Gnostic or even a Hermeticist.^[74] It was also scandalous to their orthodox Christian counterparts who accounted for the suffering condition of the world beset by evil, by relaying the story of human disobedience and the “original sin” that began in the Garden of Eden in Genesis, thus holding man responsible for the shortcomings of the creator and his creation.^[75]

The Gnostics countered this by depicting the world as a mistake from the very beginning. The creation of the world and the fall from grace were seen as the same event. The world was not created good, as told in Genesis; rather it was fashioned through the failed workmanship of blundering fallen angels and an inept deity blinded by his arrogance. To the Gnostics, the only true “original sin” was ignorance or the “counterfeit spirit” as the Apoc. John calls it, which is the result of the desire to unify with the carnal nature over the spiritual. The intermingling and entanglement of spirit and matter is the root of all sin—, and that which is mixed is destined to decompose; but that which is purely divine is eternal. Human nature mirrors the duality found in the cosmos: the outer shell is fashioned by a false god and the inner part consists of light from the God of Truth. This duality is made possible by the Demiurge and his archons’ actions identified as “Error” empowered by “ignorance” according to texts such as the Gospel of Truth, who had existed alongside the Unknowable Father—a kind of radical dualism which presents the tragic story of spirit falling into “anguish which grew solid like a fog”.

Plotinus writes disparagingly of the Gnostics that “[t]heir error is that they know nothing good here: all they care for is something else [than the structure of existence in the present] to which they will at some future time apply themselves.”^[76] Indeed, their subversive extremist attitude towards man, society and ultimately the cosmos at large is what ultimately distinguished Gnosticism from all other schools of thought. As stated earlier, Gnostic mysticism, reflective of their emanations cosmogony, is similar to Vedic thought in their views of divine consciousness within their monistic frame as illustrated by using Allogenes as the focal point. It is only when the acosmic dualism of earlier forms of Gnostic thought become apparent that the similarities end. It appears that the cross-fertilization does not extend beyond metaphysics and mysticism. At their core, they are both mystical in the sense that they stress the need for man’s reintegration with pure Being starting at the inmost center of his own existence. It is indeed the objective metaphysical union which could be seen as some sort of “payoff” or supreme fulfillment for such mystics despite their differences. They both focus attention upon the predicament of man, his disenchanted alienation and metaphysical void that comes with his existence, his horror of “the death of God,” as Nietzsche famously said. This existential estrangement can only be solved by self-inquiry and internal focus.

Small Note on Oriental Influence on Gnosis

Did a mutual influence of the Oriental and the Christian mystics of Alexandria exist? Many scholars have speculated on this, most notably Herbert Merillat:

A visit to “India” (the Buddhist Northwest of the subcontinent) conferred a cachet on holy men, historic or legendary, among Christians and others in the Middle East. “Judas Thomas,” Bardaisan, Apollonius of Tyana, and Mani were among the saintly travelers. At the age of 39 the third-century Neoplatonist Plotinus wanted to explore the thought of Persia and India. He got as far as Mesopotamia with the forces of Emperor Gordian, who was planning to invade Persia. …the Mediterranean world had been fascinated by the philosophers of India as far back as Alexander’s time (tending to confuse, as Clement sometimes did, Buddhist and Brahmin holy men, who were not naked, with Jains, who were).^[77]

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The all-engulfing helplessness in the face of colossal structures of modern society in which as of late has been has left man in a quandary. Humanity finds himself a stranger in a cold and indifferent universe. Disjointed power blocs of a civilization eclipse his soul, forcing to sell himself to the highest bidder. If not, he is forced to suffer a life of near poverty. Philosophers throughout the ages have made great strides into solving this existential crisis that wrenches and vexes the soul with varying results. Man by default is unaware of this hidden treasure within himself because he has inherited an ignorance that comes along with fleshy existence which he mistakenly identifies with himself. Because of this ignorance, the “powers” torment him and exploit the weakness that accompanies corporeal existence and reduces him to a number, a commodity, a unit of energy, of automaton conformity only to be processed and bound as a cog in the system, while renouncing his “inner man” in favor for appealing to the forces that sustain his internment state much to his detriment.

These societal forces continually mobilize all their resources with an urgent demand for conformity. This amplification of man’s alienation from true existence is called avidya or nescience, the ignorance that is rooted in the forgetting the relationship between the self and a greater, purer reality. From this ignorance, man sets himself up as a self-enclosed entity, creating sort of a prison for himself, cut off from currents of universal life. Strong attachment, asakti, to the physical world only widens this gulf of ignorance which according to Vedantic thought, it fosters dualistic thinking in the jaded or distorted sense that man is completely separate from his fellow beings, clearing the ground for the most heinous crimes and inhuman atrocities.^[78] This isolated ego-consciousness is its own world with its own distorted colored glasses unable to see the world as it is and “pierce the veil” that surrounds one’s daily existence.

This latent, special knowledge, or Gnosis, dissipates the intoxication, anxiety, nightmares, and blindness of ignorance, bringing to light what man has forgotten, because the spirit is neither awake nor asleep, but ever-present and eternal.^[79] The passageway to this multi-faceted and mediated revelatory information, which is beyond all episteme, is left for all to follow to become the ultimate authority in an epic story that struggles to unbind itself from a baleful destiny and the cruel, pitiless grip of astral determinism. It is meant for the brave because it is not a form of knowledge that is meant to be reconciled with the ways or the “wisdom of the world” being “foolishness with God” as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:19, because it is by definition, a multi-faceted, transcendental awareness (Samadhi) and fullness that does not bring material gain, but touches the inmost subtle depths and transcendent heights of inner being. And it is this knowledge that is capable of transforming and dissolving away the old. The body, soul and spirit through the power of this knowledge have been converted into one thing: something indestructible, immortal and eternal just as the initiatory and heavenly journey that Allogenes the Sattva embarks upon. The sense of rapture intertwined with cosmic nihilism characteristic of Gnostic thought brings a certain allure of beauty, danger and an uncompromising vision that seeks to untangle the entanglement of form and death.

Martin Heidegger once described man as a “shepherd of being”^[80], and this concept is not far from the message of both the Vedic and the Gnostic seers, who regarded a supernal knowledge capable of penetrating a likewise boundless and perfect realm accessible through a self-consciousness that transcends all dualism of object and subject, I and Thou, this and that. Both are concerned with the quest of spiritual redemption and liberation, cultivating the transcendent with a passionate vigor. Heraclitus once interpreted the world in terms of power and force through warfare: “All things becoming according to strife (eris)”.^[81] Accordingly, a Gnostic would certainly agree with this statement pertaining to the manifold cruel arrangement of violence, random misfortune and contradiction marked in a pitiless evolutionary existence. Amidst the chaos and absurd meaninglessness of the given world, the search for meaningful truth is the hallmark and supreme quest of the human spirit towards a luminous experience of perfection in which the aspirant or Gnostic is bound upon—like what the Apoc. John tells us: “But it is the Thought of the pre-existent light who dwells in him who awakens his thinking.”^[82]

Notes

2. Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14 would call these metaphysical speculations, the “deep things of God”.

3. The Rigveda is an ancient (and by far the oldest) Indian collection of over a 1,000 Vedic Sanskrit hymns, prayers, sacrifices and curses dedicated to its Hindu pantheon and contain a number of mythological and poetic accounts for the metaphysical origins of the cosmos. Scholars date the collection roughly 1,500-1,200 to 1,000-900 BC. The differences in dates would also account for its composition at different periods before the rise of the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilization, just before the eve of Kali Yuga on 3,102 BC.

4. Plotinus’ treatise against the Gnostics can be found in the Enneads 2:9 (dating around 253-270 AD), as a part of his Gnostic tetralogy. It serves as a basic documentation of the relationship between the two systems of thought in Rome and despite Plotinus’ opposition against Sethian Gnosis (for various reasons)—there are shared similarities between the metaphysical conception of Gnosis and Middle and Neo-Platonism. See: “Mystical Experience, Metaphysics and Ritual in Plotinus.” by Zeke Mazur for more similarities.

5. The Apocryphon of John can be dated earlier (or around the same time frame) of 185 C.E. We know this because it is referenced by Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1.20.1. The Greek original of Allogenes could possibly date to 200 C.E. For more info see: Schenke, Hans-Martin, Allogenes. Religion Past and Present. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski and , Eberhard Jüngel. Brill Online, 2012.

6. Allogenes, NHCXI, 3-46.

7. There is a positive affirmation of the “Father of the Totalities” however, in the same text: “It is he upon whom the aeons are a crown, casting forth rays. The circumference of his face is the ignorance in the outer worlds, which seek his face always because they want to know him, for his word reaches him and they want to see him. The light of his eyes penetrates as far as the places of the outer fullness.”

8. In fact, the Khandogya-Upanishad is mostly dedicated to the meditation on the singular syllable “Om”, as it is often placed at the beginning of most other Hindu texts as a sacred incantation or “nomina barbara” intoned at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas, before any prayer or mantra or sacrifice dedicated to a specific deity.

9. Seth, being Adam’s son, was credited as a father or “progenitor” to the speculative, ancient Christian sect known as the “Gnostikoi” who held a mythic self-consciousness (as the “seed of Seth”, “another seed,” “children of Light”, the “unmovable”, “unshakeable generation” etc.) Such terms were used to describe a membership to a spiritual elect which is open to all, but certainly not accepted by all which correlates to their eschatology which were assaulted by Plotinus but affirmed by the Church Fathers who had similar views on pre-destination and election. Seth was also equated  synonymously with Christ, as “Jesus the living one, even he whom the great Seth has put on,” as mentioned in The Gospel of the Egyptians also called The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit. It must be stressed that the so called “Sethians” did not call themselves this term, but instead used the terms listed earlier. It is the Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (among others such as Hippolytus and Ps.-Tertullian) who opposed this form of Gnosticism and employed such terms listed in Haer. I.30.

10. Panarion 40.7.1-5

11. Panarion 40.2.2.

12. This is exactly what is proclaimed in Zostrianos: “It is outside of him that his knowledge dwells; it dwells with the one who examines himself, a reflection and an image”. The divine image or the “imago dei” can also be seen in the New Testament, specifically in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

13. There are also many parallels between Allogenes and Hermetic literature such as the Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth, although I cannot pursue this topic here, but intend to do so in the future.

14. The Five Seals are said to be a Sethian ritual process of water and ecstatic, spiritual baptism, similar to the Hindu “tapas” or austerities.

15. Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (First Harvard University Press, 2003), 193.

16. John D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. (Les Presses de l’Universite Laval, Paris. 2001), 118. (Turner’s translation and textual analysis on Sethian Gnosticism is unparalleled as far as texts such as Allogenes, etc. is concerned.) 

17. NHC XI, 6: 15-19. 

18. NHC XI, 6:25-27

19. Zeke Mazur has done great work in regards to showing that Allogenes is the text responsible for both Plotinus and Porphyry’s understanding of this highly paradoxical mystical concept of “learned ignorance” which can be seen in their work. See for one example: “To Become An Eikon: An Intrapsychic Image as Mediator of Transcendental Apprehension of Platonizing Sethian Gnosticism and Academic Platonism.”

20. NHC XI, 7: 21-35

21. NHC XI, 8: 30-34.

22. NHC XI, 69: 15-20.

23. Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. (Brill Archive, 1982), 495.

24. “…for in that portion of the work [the Symposium] which constitutes an exposition of Plato’s own doctrine of eros the response of a male to the beauty of another male is treated as the starting-point of a co-operative philosophical effort to understand ideal beauty.” Dover, K.J. Greek Homosexuality. Harvard Press, 1989. Pg. 81. Also, see “The Platonic Concept of Love: The Symposium.” by Dr. David Naugle on the subject of Plato and Eros.

25. Plato describes his “theory of forms” within Phaedo, Republic and Phaedrus, using poetic language and allegory to illustrate this intelligible and eternal realm as unchanging “blueprints” of perfection reflected imperfectly in the world of passive matter below. These “ideas” or “aeons” could also be interpreted as the eternal “thoughts” of the transcendent God.

26. 209e5 – 211.

27. J. Dillon, Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism (Oxford 1993), 18.

28. “Theoria” or contemplation was an important part of philosophy espoused by Plato in order for the soul to ascend and gain knowledge of the “Form of the Good”. Porphyry’s teacher, Plotinus (they both studied in Rome, 263-269 A.D.) also believed contemplation to be a critical component into gaining “henosis” or a visionary union with the One or Monad. See Sententiae 32 and Ennead I. 2, Ennead 6.9.xx, as examples of how both Porphyry and Plotinus used “theoria” to experience the non-being of the “One”. Zeke Mazur’s “Mystical Experience, Metaphysics and Ritual in Plotinus” also does a marvelous job in explaining Plotinus’ ascent experiences in which the “center-point of the self” is recognizable as transcendent, but still has yet to be “paradoxically be dissolved or annihilated to attain the ultimate union” with the One.

29. “[We] were ushered into the Mystery that we may rightly call the most blessed of all. And we who celebrated it were wholly perfect…and we gazed in rapture at sacred revealed objects… That was the ultimate Vision, and we saw it in pure light because we were pure ourselves, not buried in this thing we are carrying around now which we call a body…” (Phaedrus, 250c; ET: by Alexander Nehamas, Paul Woodruff; see J. Cooper, Plato: Complete Works, Hackett Pub., pg. 528) We can also find references to the Divine Vision in Hekhalot and Merkavah literature, the New Testament (St. Paul specifically) and other texts in the Nag Hammadi Library (1 Cor. 2: 9, 2. Cor. 12:1-4, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6, Gospel of Philip, 78:26-79:2, Gospel of Thomas, #37, #83, Apocalypse of Peter, 72, Tripartate Tractate, 88.)

30. Allogenes’ Triple Power of the Invisible Spirit (Being, Vitality and Mentality) sounds close to Plotinus’ triad of One, Intellect and Soul.

31. “But I shall furnish means for overthrowing them, by meeting all their opinions in the order in which they have been described, that I may not only expose the wild beast to view, but may inflict wounds upon it from every side.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.31.4.

32. Many scholars believe that these “apocalypses” were written to appeal to readers well-versed in the Biblical tradition rather than the Hellenic schools which were mostly reserved for the upper-class. Gnostic and Hermetic thought in general were unappealing to educated pagans, who were usually more attracted to elite philosophical schools which were essentially Neo-Platonic. And this is confirmed by the controversies generated by the Gnostics who generally believed that Plato had failed to penetrate “intelligible being” (as Porphyry put it), bypassing his authority and appealed their writings to the figure of Zostrainos and Zoroaster, which both Plotinus and Porphyry viewed as uncompromising, unphilosophical and even irrational. “The hard-liners felt they were in possession of an ancient religious truth transmitted by their savior Seth, and that was enough for them, but, of course, an appeal to Seth made no sense to Plotinus and his non-Gnostic students, who were asking for a connection to Plato.” (Turner, Corrigan. Plato’s Parmenides and Its Heritage. 2010). Attridge however is, much more careful in his conniptions, “the third century saw a renewed interest in appeals to visions, particularly out-of-body visions, to authenticate religious claims. Jewish apocalypses provided a model of such visionary account, convenient perhaps for a group such as the Manichaeans, but not particularly suitable for Sethians with philosophical pretensions. They instead detached the literary form of heavenly ascent from its Jewish moorings and made it serve a more ‘ecumenical’ agenda.” Attridge, “Apocalyptic Traditions,” Pg. 205

33. An anonymous commentary on Parmenides (who some scholars believe can be attributed to Porphyry, although this is debatable) also makes similar statements featured in Allogenes: “The One beyond essence and being is neither being nor essence nor act, but rather acts and is itself pure act, such that it is itself pure being einai) before being (to on). (In Parm. XII, 23) “God is not “such–and–such a thing,” but his pre–existence extracts him from both Being and from the “He is.” [The soul] has no criterion for knowledge (gnôsis) of him, but sufficient for [the soul] is the ‘imaged object’ of the “un–knowing” of him, which rejects any form which coexists with a knowing subject.” (In Parm. 10. 23-29)

34. Allogenes, 60.8-12; 61.1f.; 64.10-14).

35. The Sophia of Jesus Christ has the Savior who proclaims himself to be from the “Infinite Light” criticizes the philosophers “from the foundation of the earth” as mere “dust”, since they inquire about God through the “movements” of the world and even they cannot agree with each other. Compare this to 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:8.

36. NHC II, 1-12. There is also a parallel to this theme in Fragment 1 in the Lost Writings of Valentinus.

37. “And who led you from your wonderful divine land into banishment, and who fettered you? And who jailed you in this dark prison, this incarceration, this place with no refuge, which constitutes this body of flesh? Oh god of Light, dear soul! Who trapped you in this satanic creation, that oozes sweet poison, and why (did he do so)? And who gave you over as a slave to the Devil who nourishes himself in this body in which a great snake (greed) resides? And who has made you a servant of his dark, shameless, unquenchable, vile fire? Oh god of Light, dear soul! Who has sundered you from eternal life?” (Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis On the Silk Road (Harper Collins, 1993), 149-50.

38. “Gnostic Liberation from Astrological Determinism: Hipparchan 'Trepidation' and the Breaking of Fate,” by Horace Jeffrey Hodges, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Nov., 1997), pp. 359-373.

39. Simone Petrement defines gnosis this way: “The knowledge of self is linked to the knowledge of the Gnostic myth…To know oneself is above all to know that one is not of the world, that one is of God, and that, since one is of God, one will return to God…Knowledge of the self therefore implies knowledge of a complete doctrine concerning God, the human soul, and the world. It results from this doctrine rather than being its source.” A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticism. (Harper Collins, 1990), 138

40. The term “inner man” is repeated throughout various texts in the Nag Hammadi Codices such as The Sentences of Sextus, Asclepius, The Letter of Peter to Philip, Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, etc. The term however originates in Paul who prays in Ephesians 3:16, “That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man.” The inner man is called “eso” in Greek, meaning “internal inner”. Paul is speaking of the hidden man of the heart, which is the realm of spirit. Compare this to the Svetasvatara Upanishad, 3:13: “The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.”

41. Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4:19

42. 10:129.

43. “Knowledege” in Greek and Sanskrit.

44. “The power of the gods’ maya allowed them to convert their divine ideas into manifest forms.  Through the power of their imagination they constructed or fashioned the many and various physical objects that constitute the world as a whole.  And it was through their maya that they projected themselves into those forms as a way to enliven them and to direct their activities.” William K. Mahony, The Artful Universe: An Introduction to the Vedic Religious Imagination. (Albany, 1998), 32.

45. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV, 5, 13.

46. Kena Upanishads. IV, 4

47. Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4:17.

49. NHC, XI, 64:1-2.

50. 1: 25

51. 1: 7-8

52. Tertullian haphazardly describes Valentinus’ “Three Natures” (a text which is lost to us) in Against Valentinians, 7. Irenaeus also describes this tripartite doctrine in Against Heresies, 1.7.5). The Gnostic Trinity echoes Paul’s words who in essence sound like something a mystagogue would say in 1 Cor. 2:6-7, 10-13, 14-15. Philo of Alexandria held a similar belief found in Kurios, (Gn. 2:4f).

53. Bhagavad Gita. Chapter XIV, 1-6

54..Bhagavad Gita. Chapter IX, 1-2)

55. There are parallels between Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita and the pre-existent “Logos” or Word of God, Jesus Christ presented in the Gospel of John. The concept of an “avatar” being the deliberate descent of a deity, incarnate in human form on earth in Hinduism typically do not have historical basis, so it is difficult on when and how they entered the physical realm. Likewise, Paul’s Christology and even the Gospel of John presents Christ or the Logos in a similar manner which neatly fits into doceticism (a divine being clothed only in the appearance of a physical body or the garment of flesh who could also shape-shift) and likewise has a sketchy historical basis much to the chagrin of many Biblical scholars. Similar to Gnostic imagery, Krishna transfigures and appears to his disciple Arjuna in a blaze of glory, brighter than the light of a thousand suns. It is tempting to elaborate further, but perhaps this will be accomplished in a future essay.

56. Zostrianos is also arguably influenced directly or indirectly, by the use of the Noetic Triad in Allogenes as well. The Book of Zostrianos also describes an apocalyptic heavenly journey in which “baptisms” which are clearly spiritual experiences rather than physical rituals, as they take place in celestial realms in the course of the prophet’s visionary ascent, not unlike Allogenes. According to Dr. John Turner, the Sethians who valued writings of this kind may well have had some established ritual methods for the induction of such altered states of consciousness (cultivated through their Five Seals), even if they did not literally involve immersion in water (or sprinkling/pouring of water). However, they may have begun as a baptismal sect similar to the Mandaeans, the Essenes or John the Baptist’s disciples. The Five Seals themselves are said to be sort of a “baptismal rite consisting of enrobing, baptizing, enthroning, glorifying and snatching away. However, there are two stages that precede the enrobing in the life of a Gnostic. These stages are the recognition of a calling via a resonance between the spark inside the Gnostic and the primal logos and the stripping away of the material world in response to the call.” Darren Iammarino. “Similarities Between Sethian Baptism and the Bridal Chamber of Thomas Gnosticism and Valentinianism.” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 1, no. 1 (2009).

57. NHC, XIII, 35: 1-12.

58. NHC, XIII, 49: 6-20.

59. It is worth noting that scholars consider the doctrine of the three-forms to be an attempt to reconcile different approaches to Brahman, although the teaching is rather artificial and even an unsuccessful construct despite the fact that the identification of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma as one being (emphasized in the Kurma Purana), Brahma never particularly gained the popularity that of his two counterparts—Vishnu and Shiva.

60. John D. Turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition. (Les Presses de l’Universite Laval, Paris, 2001) 97.

61. This is similar to the Valentinian idea of the Logos using the Demiurge to fashion the cosmos in the Tripartite Tractate.

62. In Timaeus, the demiurge’s vision of the Platonic Forms or the primordial archetypes compelled him to mold the universe or “kosmos”, out of the pre-existent matter that existed alongside the Good. The cosmos is thus seen as a mechanical and imperfect copy or “sketch” of a much more profound reality. The activity of this Divine Craftsman serves as a model for human creativity and artistic work. The artist likewise relies on inspiration and conscious imitation of these ideas rather than philosophical pursuit and disclosure of truth through dialectic means. It is easy to see how the Gnostics directly parodied this idea through the figure of “Ialdabaoth”.

63. Svetasvatara Upanishad, 6:18. There is a parallel to this where Vishnu relays the “holy science” of the Bhagavad Gita to Brahma.

64. See: F. B. J. Kuiper, “The Basic Concept of Vedic Religion,” History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 107-120 for a more detailed explanation of Indra’s demiurgical role in the creation of the world.

65. Dialogues of the Buddha, 2:264.

66. The word lila itself was first used in the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana 2.1.33: “the supreme Lord creates the world merely in play (lilakaivalayam)”

67. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine. (Sri Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department, 2000), 553.

68. Ibid, 551.

69. “On the scale of the total divine drama, this process is part of the restoration of the deity’s own wholeness, which in pre-cosmic times has become impaired by the loss of portions of the divine substance. It is through these alone that the deity became involved in the destiny of the world, and it is to retrieve them that its messenger intervenes in cosmic history.” Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 2d ed. Enlarged. Boston, 1963, p. 45

71. Papias. Fragment 7. Also, consider the design of the universe, since the vast majority of it is either too hot or too cold, or too full of wasted, empty space to support any sentient life. This is the Gnostic take on “intelligent design” since such incompetent craftsmanship implies that the creator god was in essence, a “god of the blind” and unable to properly perceive the pneumatic world. Accordingly, only spirit is ultimately real while time and space have no absolutes; they are conditions of (disjointed) perception.

72. O’brien, Denis. “Plotinus on matter and evil” The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Ed. Lloyd P. Gerson. Cambridge University Press, 1996.Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University Press.

73. Compare the Gnostic worldview to S. Radhakrishnan’s treatment of the Vedic outlook of the world: “The Vedic Philosophy and the Doctrine of Maya: “Thus we see how ancient Hindu philosophy sought for an explanation of the world of experience and arrived at the solution that the whole world is identical with the Eternal Spirit. There is no duality between the two, between the world and the spirit. The world is the spirit. But any one portion of the world, any aspect thereof, is only a phase of the eternal spirit and is, therefore, not the spirit. Every part is dependent on the others, which altogether constitute Brahman. Reality is the whole, and it is one system. It is impossible to be satisfied with anything short of the whole.”

74. Prescript. 40.

75. Plotinus reveals his classist ethic by saying, “Wealth and poverty, and all the inequalities of that order are made ground of complaint.” Enneads, 2.9.9.

76. It is interesting to see in that Psalms 8:5, it presents the material man in very positive terms: “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.”

77. Plotinus. Enneads, 2.9.15.

78. The Gnostic Society Library. “The Gnostic Apostle Thomas. Chapter 22: Buddhism and Gnosticism.” Accessed January 20, 2013. http://gnosis.org/thomasbook/ch22.html

There is also evidence that the Church Fathers and heretical groups were at least aware of Buddhist and Indian groups. See: Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis I, 15, etc).

79. The Gospel of Truth makes a similar point: “As when one falls asleep and finds oneself in the midst of nightmares: running towards somewhere, powerless to get away while being pursued–in hand to hand combat–being beaten–falling from a great height..sometimes too it seems that one is being murdered..or killing one’s neighbors, with whose blood one is smeared..”

80. The Gospel of Truth again makes a similar statement: “As in the case of the ignorance of a person, when he comes to have knowledge, his ignorance vanishes of itself, as the darkness vanishes when the light appears, so also the deficiency vanishes in the perfection.”

81. Martin Heidegger. Basic Writings, 1993. Pg. 234

82. Gregory Fried. Heidegger’s Polemos: From Being to Politics. Yale University. 2000. Pg. 24

83. NHC, II, 1-15