Please read the Glossary of My Terms to be able to follow this post.
There is this brand of religious doctrines that has fewer blindfolds, Gnosticism. What these doctrines have in common is the belief that a purely good (‘Divine’) and a coarse impulse are active in the universe, that earthscheme comes from the latter, but that humans carry within them a Divine chip.
Gnostic groups practice a ritual or rituals, endorse and/or generate an assortment of scripture, and have some hierarchy, albeit on a far smaller scale than other religious groups. In these respects Gnosticism is like every other religion.
As I mention in the sketch of my life, I have had two experiences of gnostic nature; a feeling of transcendent ease and love and joy; free of every preoccupation including mortality. Now I think of death, not my death. In my first experience, which lasted four days, I had the sensation of my heart yawning open. The second experience was shortlived because I opted to get on with something that was pressing, with the expectation that the experience would visit me again; there was a pronounced being outside of my normal consciousness. I have not, in these states been privy to a shred of – esoteric – information. And I have not been left with a desire to hook up with another who has had similar experiences … no group wish whatsoever.
In 15th century Italy Giovanni Pico della Mirandola attempted to promote ideas that have been cast by many as Gnosticism … man has free will, can shape himself. “Let a certain holy ambition invade our souls, so that, not content with the mediocre we shall pact up to the highest, and since we may, if we wish, toil with all our strength to obtain it, full of divine power, we shall no longer be ourselves, but become he himself who made us, for he who knows himself in himself, knows all things, as Zoroaster first wrote.“ What could the Conte have meant by “a certain holy ambition”? Not a fervent resolve to comply with The Ten Commandments; he was not “mediocre”. Whatever notion he had, I wonder if it was born of an experience that could be described as gnosis. In my experiences it was very clear that any form of cultivation was utterly alien to them. Mirandola was immensely scholarly; he was driven to derive satisfaction from knowledge. In my perception persons of this mould are not likely to savour gnosis.
A scholarly proponent of Gnosticism of our day is Stefan Hoeller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCrr3uCmgB8 The extent and depth of his learning, and his exposition so clear and richly seasoned with humour, can only be highly admired. He too holds that we can aspire to and do something conducive to gnosis. “ There’s an intimation that something very wonderful is available … and if we are ready to receive it, then we can climb out of the grave like Lazarus and then we are in the resurrected, the glorified state … And it only needs an initiatory change inside, something needs to click and then we are back where we belong … and may that day and that hour come soon, until which time we pray, and we aspire and we study, and our aspiration will not be without reward.” (the underlining is mine). My experiences say that neither aspiration nor prayer, and even less study, can facilitate gnosis. Fundamentally, the seeking of gain is a disqualifier for gnosis.