glossary of terms used by frithjof schuon - Sophia Perennis

Gnosis / Gnosticism: It is a fact that too many authors – we would almost say: general
opinion – attribute to gnosis what is proper to Gnosticism and to other counterfeits of the
sophia perennis, and moreover make no distinction between the latter and the most
freakish movements, such as spiritualism, theosophism and the pseudo-esoterisms that
saw the light of day in the twentieth century. It is particularly regrettable that these
confusions are taken seriously by most theologians, who obviously have an interest in
entertaining the worst opinion possible concerning gnosis; now the fact that an imposture
necessarily imitates a good, since otherwise it could not even exist, does not authorize
charging this good with all the sins of the imitation.
In reality, gnosis is essentially the path of the intellect and hence of intellection; the
driving force of this path is above all intelligence, and not will and sentiment as is the
case in the Semitic monotheistic mysticisms, including average Sufism. Gnosis is
characterized by its recourse to pure metaphysics: the distinction between Atma and
Maya and the consciousness of the potential identity between the human subject, jivatma,
and the Divine Subject, Paramatma. The path comprises on the one hand
“comprehension,” and on the other “concentration”: hence doctrine and method. The
modalities of the latter are quite diverse: in particular, there is on the one hand the
mantra, the evocative and transforming formula, and on the other hand, the yantra, the
visual symbol. The path is the passage from potentiality to virtuality, and from virtuality
to actuality, its summit being the state of the one “delivered in this life,” the jivan-mukta.
As for Gnosticism, whether it arises in a Christian, Moslem or other climate, it is a fabric
of more or less disordered speculations, often of Manichean origin; and it is a
mythomania characterized by a dangerous mixture of exoteric and esoteric concepts.
Doubtless it contains symbolisms that are not without interest – the contrary would be
astonishing – but it is said that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”; it could
just as well be said that it is paved with symbolisms. [THC, Gnosis Is Not Just Anything]
Gnosis is the way of the intellect. We say “gnosis” and not “Gnosticism,” for the latter is
most often a heterodox mythological dogmatism, whereas intrinsic gnosis is not other
than what the Hindus mean by jnana and Advaita-Vedanta. To claim that all gnosis is
false because of Gnosticism, amounts to saying, by analogy, that all prophets are false
because there are false prophets . . . In common opinion gnosis equals “intellectual
pride,” as if this were not a contradiction in terms, pure intelligence coinciding precisely
with objectivity, which by definition excludes all subjectivism, hence especially pride
which is its least intelligent and coarsest form. [RHC, On Intelligence]
Gnosis / Love: There are various ways of expressing or defining the difference between
gnosis and love – or between jnana and bhakti – but here we wish to consider one
criterion only, and it is this: for the volitional or affective man (the bhakta) God is “He”
and the ego is “I,” whereas for the gnostic or intellective man (the jnani) God is “I” – or
“Self” – and the ego is “he” or “other.” It will also be immediately apparent why it is the
former and not the latter perspective that determines all religious dogmatism: it is
because the majority of men start out from certainty about the ego rather than about the
Absolute. Most men are individualists and consequently but little suited to concretely
making an abstraction of their empirical “I,” a process which is an intellectual problem
and not a moral one: in other words, few have the gift of impersonal contemplation – for
50