Eros & Gnosis: A Gnostic Study of Human

Sexuality
July 8, 2010 By davidjones

By Dr. STEPHAN A. HOELLER

—

Human beings are not only the funniest monkeys: they are the sexiest ones as well. In many ways
we are a species singularly devoted to sex. We talk, write, read, joke and argue about it; we dress
and undress for it, and, given favourable circumstances, we perform it regularly. More
importantly, and sometimes lamentably, we have innumerable laws and commandments to
organise, punish, curb, repress and otherwise influence sexual actions and feelings and have
devised psychological penances of guilt and shame which we come to attach to our sexuality.

Because of these and related circumstances, most people are confused and bewildered about sex
much of the time, and those who profess not to be thus flummoxed tend to take umbrage under
clichés and half truths which they have consciously accepted, but which are not in harmony with
either their instinctual or their spiritual natures.

It goes without saying that if the Gnostic worldview is any kind of a worldview at all, it must be
able to address itself meaningfully to this predicament and thus to suggest spiritually sound ways
in which men and women might successfully extricate themselves from the same. The present
essay is an attempt to suggest some Gnostic ways of viewing and dealing with sexuality, and in
offering it to the reader, the author is not unmindful of certain hazards.

Psychoanalyst Edward Glover once suggested that writing on psychologically charged subjects
should be classified as a dangerous occupation. When in the course of such writing one happens
to expose the unconscious motives of some persons, pandemonium is certain to follow. The
psychologically exposed individuals frequently relieve their anxiety by attacking the writer who
has presumed to disturb their precarious and cherished peace of mind. Martyrdom is surely not an
uncommon experience to the Gnostic, and if some form of it befall the author, the risk will
hopefully have been worth taking!

The ancient term “Gnosis” has two very useful modern analogues; they are the words
“consciousness” and “meaning.” Both of these are vitally important to any useful consideration
of sexuality. Without consciousness, in the psychological sense, sexuality is a mere expression of
instinct: Useful in its domain, but unrelated to the enhancement of life, to the experience of the
fullness of being. With the coming of consciousness, all experiences, including the sexual ones,
acquire meaning. As consciousness adds a greatly needed component to experience, so meaning
brings us the experience of totality, of the fullness (Pleroma) extolled by the Gnostics.

Between the reality of our lives lived in time and the quality of life’s timelessness, between our
personal and mundane experiences and the realm which transcends the tangible world, there
exists a creative tensional relationship of opposites. The Apostle Thomas, reporting the words of
Jesus, reminds us that the saving, or Christ principle, always comes to us to make the two into
one, to unite the above and the below, the left and the right, the inner and the outer, and the male
and the female into a single one.

The reconciling agent of all such opposites is meaning. When, on the other hand, the tension
between the poles of existence is lacking, then, as C.G. Jung has expressed it, human beings
“have the feeling that they are haphazard creatures without meaning, and it is this feeling that
prevents them from living their lives with the intensity it demands if it is to be enjoyed to the full.
Life becomes stale and is no longer the exponent of the complete human being.” (Analytical
Psychology and Weltanschauung).

Sexuality is one of the most important tensional relationships of the opposites in life. It is
therefore evident that it must have, it does have, great meaning. To leave such a rich mine of
meaning, of Gnosis, unexplored would be a grave omission indeed. Let us then proceed with our
exploration. As it is useful in such cases, we shall proceed from the ground upwards, as it were,
and begin with the evidence of the physical aspect of humankind by reviewing the evidence of
biology.
 The Gnosis of Biology
The human species is a unique one in many ways, and not the least claim to such uniqueness is to
be found in the sexual sphere. The human is the sexiest animal on earth. No other sexually
reproducing species makes love with such frequency, and consequently, sexually toned behaviour
saturates a large portion of the individual and social life of every man and woman. There is a
biological reason for this. Unlike the female of every other species, the human female is capable
of constant sexual arousal. She is biologically capable of copulating every single day of her adult
life. She can make love during pregnancy, and she can become sexually active shortly after
having a child. In fact, she can engage in sex whenever she pleases.

Animals are far less sexy than humans. All female animals have a period of heat (the estrus)
during which they copulate, and when this period is over, neither the females nor the males of the
species engage regularly in sex. (Among caged baboons and chimpanzees one may observe some
sexual activity outside of the period of heat, as one may among free chimps and orangutans, but
their sexual activities at “unusual” times are minimal when compared to the human.) Unlike
humans, female animals do not accept males while menstruating, they do not initiate sex during
pregnancy, and they do not resume their menstrual cycle before their young are weaned.

Due to the so-called “silent ovulation” (the absence of the signs of heat) of the human female, her
fertility is never dramatically announced as it is among the animals. The result is that human
couples do not know when a woman is ready to conceive. In order to insure the conception of
offspring, humans thus must make love regularly, even past the time when conception has
occurred. Similarly, especially where breast-feeding is not prolonged, human mothers are capable
of resuming their ovulation about six weeks after delivering a child. There seems to be an
unmistakable conspiracy of nature directed toward motivating human beings to make love daily,
for the human female, alone of all other females, is uniquely designed to do so!

Anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher, in her book The Sex Contract (William Morrow and Co., 1982)
traces the evolutionary development of the unique human sexual situation. She tells us that the
genetic evolutionary process which led to the present condition of humanity in regards to sex
began about 8 million years ago, when humans became accustomed to walking upright.
Protohominid females who delivered their young in a relatively immature state had a better
chance of surviving childbirth, because the smaller birth canal, developed as the result of
walking, made the delivery of large, developed infants hazardous. The mothers, now forced to
care for their children for a long period, were more prone to engage in sex outside of their limited
periods of fertility than they were wont to do earlier in their evolution. Since the most popular
females were fed and protected most adequately, they tended to survive in greater numbers and
thus passed on their genetic traits to more offspring. Thus our present patterns of biologically
unlimited sexual intercourse came into being.

Dr. Fisher writes: “With the stimulus of constantly available sex, protohominids had begun the
most fundamental exchange the human race would ever make.” The fundamental exchange
consisted in bringing males and females more closely together than hitherto would have been
possible. The bond of constant sexual interest kept them together in each other’s company; it
made them divide their labours, to exchange food, to share the daily work and joys of living. Men
and women became aware of each other emotionally, and eventually mentally and intuitively as
the result of the sexual force which tied them together, creating a never abating forcefield of
dynamic tension between them. Sex has become the progenitor of affection, love, relatedness,
and above all, consciousness. From purely biological data we may thus infer with some
justification that the coming of unlimited sexual expression became the fountain and origin of
vast achievements of human consciousness which otherwise could and would not have come to
pass. The implications of this insight for past, present and future are large indeed, and should be
apparent to all.

The Gnosis of Psychohistory

Human biology has its history, and so does the human mind, or psyche. As one might expect, the
importance of sexuality and of its influence on various aspects of human life are very much part
of this history of the mind. Psychohistorians, whose theories contain elements relevant to the
concerns of sexuality, are numerous. Among those inspired by Freud, singular distinction belongs
to G. Rattray Taylor (Sex in History), while among C.G. Jung’s followers one needs to refer to
Erich Neumann (The Great Mother and The Origin and History of Consciousness) as well as to
Esther Harding (Psychic Energy; Its Source and Goal.) The considerations which are to follow
here utilise the theories of these authors, and amplify their views by way of certain insights of the
ancient Gnostics.

The protopsychology of the ancient Gnostics (as well as of others in the Hellenistic culture)
perceived three main divisions of the human person. The first of these is matter, or body (hyle,
soma); the second mind, or soul (psyche); and the third spirit (pneuma). The existential point of
gravity of a person’s life moves according to certain patterns from one of these three to the
others, and an individual’s type (today called psychological type) would be determined by which
one of these three principles acts as the primary focus of his or her consciousness. All people are
capable of experiences of body, soul and spirit in some measure, but the seat of their principal
identity is located within one only. Thus, there are people whose outstanding concerns are
invariably material, while others function chiefly from a centre of consciousness lodged in their
mind, while yet others look at all things from a point of view that is primarily of a character that
we might call spiritual.

The presence of any individual within one or the other of these three categories is not a matter of
accident, but rather of a transformational growth and development or consciousness, which
begins with the material plane and rises eventually to the spiritual.

When we apply this Gnostic idea to the matter of human sexuality we may find some useful
insights. There is, first of all, what we might call a hyletic (matter oriented) type of sexuality. To
persons of this type sexuality is primarily a bodily urge, largely unrelated to any feeling or regard
for the partner in sex, and originally even quite unaware of the possible results of copulation in
reproduction. In a sense, we might say that persons in this stage of development are not
participating in a sexual act, but they are identified with it. An interesting phenomenon connected
with this is the identification of persons with their sexual organs, as evidenced by works of much
primitive art, where men and women are represented with disproportionately large sexual organs.
Similarly one may note the use of words denoting sexual organs when describing an individual in
the idiom of obscene slang. All of these are evidences of the identification of the entire person
with sex. Men are merely phallus bearers and women vagina-carriers; they are not persons, but
embodiments of their sexuality. Hyletic sexuality in its later stages also becomes involved in the
idea of offspring. Men thus come to look upon their mates not as persons but as the potential or
actual mothers of their children, and women look upon men as beings capable of giving them
children. In each case we are dealing with a primitive phenomenon, a manifestation of hyletic or
biological urges. (It needs to be recognised that the urge to have offspring is just as primitive and
unconscious an urge as the one moving to sexual intercourse. The notion that the desire for
children is somehow more moral and refined than the desire for sex is nonsense!) Freudian
psychohistorians tend to call the hyletic phase of sexuality “matrist,” by identifying it with the
archaic domination of children by the Mother. Matrist sexuality is quite permissive, even
promiscuous and polymorphous, and leads to the formation of “shame cultures” and the
development of the incest taboo. The term “oral” is applied to its quality by Freudian writers.

In the next stage of development, sexuality becomes linked with emotion and thinking. Ego-
development having taken place, consciousness now wishes to subdue the unconscious and thus
develops numerous devices for the control of impulse. This is the greatest period of sexual
repression and the phase when issues of law and commandment take on a great importance. The
Gnostic terminology calls this phase the psychic, for it is here that the mind-emotion complex
called “psyche” (soul, or mind) becomes dominant. Mythologically and symbolically this ego or
mind is frequently connected with the masculine principle, and thus we find that psychic
humanity tends to be patriarchal and masculine in its orientation and consequently a negative
view of femininity and of female sexuality predominates. Men in their desire for impulse control
begin to view women as temptresses, as instinctual creatures who have to be subdued and
controlled. Jungian psychology calls this the “patriarchal phase” while Freudian writers refer to it
as “patrist” or father-identifying, and its predominant tendency is said to be “anal.” It is obvious
that the dominant cultural influences of Western society are predominantly of this variety, and
that most of these influences stem from religious roots within the semitic religiosity of Judaism,
Islam and non-Gnostic Christianity. This phase of the development of consciousness is greatly
attached to the institution of marriage, and its chief taboos are against adultery and
homosexuality. Its result is the so-called “guilt culture.”

The third, or pneumatic, phase is the most difficult to discuss, because it denotes a form or state
of consciousness that is as rare today as it was in the second and third centuries A.D. There is
little doubt, however, that several ancient Gnostic teachers, most notably Valentinus, envisioned
this spiritual condition as a union of the masculine and feminine aspects of the human being with
a consequent androgynation, which undoubtedly would have its reflection in the sexual sphere
also. While the anti-Gnostic church fathers with fierce inconsistency accused the Gnostics of
excessive asceticism and licentiousness in the same breath, the more recent discoveries of
Gnostic writings indicate that the Gnostics were intent upon a mysterious pneumaticisation of
sexuality, which process was embodied in the Valentinian sacrament of the bridal chamber. One
of the chief results of the pneumatic state of Gnosis is the ability of the Gnostic to rise above the
law (antinomianism) and to be motivated no longer by the external commandment of so-called
revelation, but rather by the internal command of the indwelling divine spirit. This might be
envisioned as the highest form of situation ethics, inspired by intuition, rather than by any
rational considerations. The principle is compatible both with the ethics of existential philosophy
and with Jungian psychology. The pneumatic Gnostic can no longer rely on any external
commandment but must live by the existential courage of daily moral decisions. In Sartre’
swords, “he is doomed to freedom.” C.G. Jung also envisioned a condition within the
individuation process where in the moral laws of society and church are relativated and indeed
rendered meaningless by the spiritual growth of the individual. Right and wrong become a matter
of personal choice based on spiritual insight, rather than standards derived from a code delivered
by god or by society.

The sexual implications of the pneumatic phase of the growth of consciousness are considerable.
With the fusion of the masculine and feminine attitudes in the psyche, a fully mature sexuality
may be expected to arise. Love becomes the fulfilling of the law, and it goes without saying that
this love will have sexual expressions as well. Neither will the expressions of this love be in any
way limited by human institutions and prejudices whether they concern marital status, the gender
of the beloved or the permanence or impermanence of the love relationship. The spirit bloweth
where it listeth; human institutions and earthly considerations must pale before the pneumatic
love. The accusation of libertinism hurled against the Gnostics by Irenaeus, Hypolitus and others
is thus revealed as the sort of misunderstanding the contemporary Gnostic might face also. The
intuitive morality of the pneumatic can be readily confused by the uncomprehending with hyletic,
immorality and amorality, while it is nothing of the sort. The pneumatic phase bears, incidentally,
all the hallmarks of what Erich Neumann called the “integrative phase,” and its characteristics are
to some extent identical with what Freudian psychologists envision as “genital” sexuality.

Different Strokes for Different Gnostic Folks

The above noted psychohistorical considerations raise important issues which might be of
concern to contemporary Gnostics. Are all Gnostics obliged to follow the pneumatic ethic at all
times? Is psychic morality, especially in the sexual area, still relevant to the Gnostic? Have we all
successfully outgrown hyletic modes of behaviour? And how are the answers to these questions
likely to affect the sexual behaviour of the contemporary Gnostic?

Our situation might be summed up as follows: We live in a culture which ostensibly follows a
psychic system of morality in sexual matters, but which is in practice more often than not
composed of persons whose character is hyletic. Pneumatics are far and in between, and usually
hidden away in the secret corners of contemporary life. Moreover, all persons possess hyletic,
psychic, and pneumatic components in their character, with one or the other predominating. It is
thus evident that most persons, including Gnostics, will express their sexuality sometimes in
ways that are hyletic, at other times they may be attached to attitudes that are predominantly
psychic and in some instances they may be capable of behaviour that may be properly recognised
as pneumatic. Most people may also go through these phases in their own lifetimes. It is by no
means unusual for early youth to be sexually quite hyletic (a sort of adolescent sexuality, as it
were), for young adulthood to be involved in the marital and societal ambiance of a psychic
sexual morality, and for the middle-aged person to achieve a matter-of-fact and liberated attitude
toward sexuality, without serious inhibitions and guilts; in short, an attitude that approximates
that of the pneumatic.
Since it would be reasonable to say that modern Gnostics may thus find persons of all three
orientations in their midst, it might be helpful to present here a few brief guidelines for all three
types regarding sexuality.

The hyletic needs to be reminded that, while hyletic sexuality is no more sinful or less virtuous
than any other kind, it is still limiting and limited. Indiscriminate sexual behaviour is
characterised by unconsciousness and this is a condition one ought to outgrow. Still, no one can
be equally conscious of all aspects of life at all times, and a relatively high level of consciousness
in one area may be accompanied by a relatively low level in another. The key concept must
always be authenticity. If our behaviour has adduced to it as much consciousness as we could
muster under the circumstances, this should be enough. There should be no judging of anyone for
his or her sexual mores. Authenticity by nature is a highly personal issue. One person may be far
more authentic and conscious while associating with multiple sexual partners than another locked
into a rigid psychic cage of so-called monogamy. Striving for consciousness will inevitably bring
its own reward and is far more useful than blind obedience to external rules.

The psychic person may prove more troublesome within a Gnostic context than either the hyletic
or the pneumatic. Unlike the happy-go-lucky hyletics, psychics tend to be rigid personalities with
a strong proclivity for projecting their own shadows, especially their sexual shadows on others.
They tend to be judgmental, intolerant and self-righteous. In short, they are a mess, or at least
they appear as such. Psychics ought to remember that goodness, by anyone’s standards, including
their own, is never enough. Wholeness, not goodness, is the objective of the Gnostic life. Jung
was fond of saying in truly Gnostic fashion: “It is only the fullness of being that counts.” Rules
exist in order to be outgrown. We may not always be ready to outgrow them yet, but the
desirability of the prospect must always be kept in mind. When following rules after the fashion
of the psychic we but see through a glass darkly, and we should aspire to the clear vision face to
face with authentic reality. While we must be careful not to judge the hyletic, we must often
dissuade the psychic from judging everyone. Psychics may also be reminded that it is the psychic
law alone that creates sin. “I had not known sin but by the law” said a Hebrew prophet. The
harsher our own standards of judgement the greater will be our own guilt and spiritual impotence
and the more our potential for liberation will diminish. Sexual guilt has been the greatest single
curse the demiurge and his minions have hurled against humanity; it has been the blight of our
culture, the stifler of creativity and the enemy of Gnosis. It must be recognised and its suggestion
rejected at all times.

That rare bird known as the pneumatic, must above all, be discreet. Pneumatics have a divine
right to their freedom, including their sexual freedom, but they have no right to bad manners. The
spiritual nobility of the world must maintain decorum and discretion while exercising its
prerogatives. The humourous adage often attributed to the British aristocracy of some time ago
may be remembered here: “Do what you wish, but don’t do it in the road and frighten the horses.”
Politicised sexuality, such as we have experienced in the era of the various liberation movements
often comes under the heading of bad manners. Rigid psychics will not be converted to a
pneumatic point of view by being confronted with sexual behaviour inappropriate to their level of
consciousness. Ill advised action inevitably creates reaction. Pneumatics need not be apologetic
about their liberated state, and they need not dissimulate or be guilty of hypocrisy. At the same
time they must extend to the unliberated the same freedoms they demand for themselves. Persons
who flaunt their sexual unconventionality and wish to force everyone to bear their sexual foibles
without complaint are usually hyletics putting on the mask of pneumatics. “By their manners and
their discretion ye shall know them” could be said of the true pneumatics.

Conclusions for Daily – and Nightly – Life

It is a cliché that we live in an era of great sexual confusion. Clichés, however, are not usually
untrue, they have merely become clichés by excessive repetition. Can the Gnostic point of view
bring some clarity into this confusion? Can the contemporary Gnostic offer meaningful
suggestions on the sexual topics and perplexities of our times? We shall answer such questions by
stating our Gnostic position regarding individual issues of sexual significance.

Sex in general. Biology, psychology and Gnosticism indicate that sex is a beneficent,
consciousness-enhancing factor in human life. Sexually active persons are healthier, more
balanced, and generally more pleasant members of society then the sexually inactive. There is
every indication that sex is good for you physically, psychologically and spiritually. All sex that is
not injurious to anyone and does not violate the sovereignty of any person is good, although some
kinds of sex, such as those among loving, concerned, compatible partners are no doubt better than
others.

Sex and the Sacred. In many religions, both pre-Christian and contemporary, sexual practices
play some part. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the notion that sexual acts and
religious acts can converge, one must exercise considerable care when trying to apply such
principles within a contemporary context. Such magicosexual practices as one finds in the Hindu
Tantras, in the “great rite” of the witches, and in the sex magic of the late Aleister Crowley, all
suffer from the shortcoming that they tend to depersonalise the individuals who participate in
them. Joseph Campbell in his splendid book Myths To Live By has pointed out that beginning
with the mysticism of the Troubadours, the West came to espouse love-magic as against mere sex
magic. C.G. Jung’s commentaries on the Rosarium Philosophorum indicate that a similar
principle of love-magic was present in the system of Alchemy. The Gnostic tradition indicates
that the early communities of knowers, particularly those attached to the teachings of Valentinus,
practiced a supreme rite of pneumatic union, sometimes called the “mystery of the bridal
chamber” which may have served as the prototype of many later rites of love-magic, symbolising
the union of the lower personality with the heavenly pneuma, which may be envisioned as being
of a contrasexual nature (female for men and male for women). The development of a conscious
personality is one of the great achievements of Western spirituality. Persons love, unconscious
beings merely copulate. Both actions are magical, but the former is preferable to the latter. There
is no doubt that the magic of the sexes needs to be re-incorporated into religion, but we must take
care that in attempting to do this we will not resort to archaic practices which were useful in
periods of history when consciousness and personality were minimal compared to contemporary
conditions.

Marriage. The Christian sacrament of matrimony was the last to be formally accepted; it did not
come to be generally used in the church for hundreds of years. The reason for this may be found
in the unacknowledged fact that the early Church, along with the Valentinians, knew only one
true marriage: the heavenly marriage of the personality to the spirit. The contractual relationship
of two earthly personalities within the context of property, inheritance, and so forth, the church
initially left purely to the state. Only when the Church allowed itself to become an agent of the
secular power did she uniformly come to practice marriage as a sacrament. Thus the present
practice of the sacrament of marriage is a deficient sacrament, a mere shadow of the mystery of
the bridal-chamber. There is no reason why the church, even the Gnostic church, should not bless
the contractual relationships of men and women when asked to do so, but it must be kept in mind
that this is not a mystery of the same order as the Eucharist, or Holy Orders, or the other true
mysteries. The notion that sexual congress without the benefit of such a contractual relationship
is sinful cannot be accepted within a Gnostic context.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, and androgyny. It is generally understood that at the non-physical

level, people are not limited to their bodily gender. Jesus declared in the Gnostic scriptures that
he “came to make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and
the female not be female.” We may take this to mean that in order to attain to the Wholeness of
the Pleroma, all persons are striving toward a spiritual androgyny. In the hyletic phase of
development this often manifests as polymorphous bisexuality, in the psychic phase as
homosexuality, and in the pneumatic phase it moves increasingly into the area of a spiritually
based androgyny. None of these are sinful or should be condemned in Gnostic thinking. The idea
of a “crime against nature” is meaningless to the Gnostic, for our nature is not merely physical
nature, such as our gender, but our total nature within which all dualities exist. When asked about
homosexuality, the great modern Gnostic C.G. Jung merely said: “Well, they are the only people
who are trying doing something against over-population.” The attraction of persons of the same
gender toward each other meets with the most powerful taboos of the patriarchal-psychic phases
of cultural development and is therefore encumbered by many unnecessary ideas and
apprehensions.

Birth control and abortion. Anthropologists have noted that agricultural societies tend to be
opposed to the limiting of births, while nomadic-pastoral societies encourage the same. Many
great religions came to adopt the mythos of the agricultural societies and have proscribed birth
control and abortion. The theological justification brought forth in support of the position of these
religions is more or less to the effect that the prevention of birth is a contravention of the will of
God. Many religions believe that a distinct soul is attached to every foetus at conception and that
therefore the destruction of the foetus is murder. This idea is highly speculative and, like all
theological notions, not subject to any evidence. The Gnostic traditions hold that the soul’s
connection with the foetus is minimal until the seventh month of pregnancy. The obsessive fury
of various religionists in our days against both birth control and abortion ought to elicit no
sympathy from Gnostics. It is obvious that the more conscious humanity becomes, the more it
will exercise conscious control over the size of families and the less it will be inclined to place
innumerable offspring heedlessly onto an overpopulated earth. That people simply ought to
become sexually inactive when not desiring offspring is a notion that is as silly as it is unrealistic.

Monogamy, celibacy, and chastity. While often confused, these three terms have very distinct
meanings. Monogamy denotes sexual exclusiveness in favour of only one partner; it is an idea
that acquired much importance in the psychic phase of psychohistory. Even today it may have
merit for some, but it ought not be advocated or enforced generally. As consciousness expands,
the affectionate and emotional needs widen also. It may be counterproductive to be attached to
rigid ideas of monogamy in such instances. Celibacy is the unmarried state, as is customary
among the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Gnostics make no rules about whether their
clergy ought to marry or not, and thus the issue of celibacy is of no great import for us. Chastity
implies abstention from sexual activity of any kind; it is a practice that puts a very heavy strain
on the psyches of persons, and its benefits are minimal, if any.

Family. Whenever this term is used today, it tends to denote the nuclear family unit of industrial
society, which means, really, a phenomenon of the last hundred years. In the time of Jesus or even
in that of Louis XIV the concept of family differed radically from the one of today. To go along
with the moral reactionaries of our time and to hold up the nuclear family of recent vintage as the
divinely decreed paragon of all virtue and goodness and the best possible cornerstone of society
is, to say the least, unrealistic. While some sort of family structure is likely to continue to exist in
humanity, we must possess an elastic vision regarding its future contours and character. Some
modern research indicates that radical changes in the present family image would be highly
beneficial to the psychological well-being of people in our society. Dr. David Cooper, existential
psychiatrist, and associate of R.D. Laing, in his fine work The Death of the Family (Penguin
Books, 1971) has built a convincing case for the need to develop alternatives to the nuclear
family of conventional society. Once again it must be remembered that as human consciousness
grows, the importance of ties and roots based purely in blood and soil tend to diminish.
Relatively primitive, traditional societies are often so constructed that the individual is tyrannised
and dwarfed by the family. In contrast with this, modern urban societies are moving more and
more in a direction where the family loses its hold over individuals who thus need to develop
their own lives and resources. For practical purposes it may be noted that the less closed off, the
less insular and nuclear the family is, the less likely it is to destroy the sexual and social
independence of the individual. A family ought to act as a springboard to life and to people and
not as a fortress wherein a small nucleus of persons shuts itself in, while shutting the greater
world out.

Sex and the procreation of offspring. As one may deduce from various foregoing statements, the
Gnostic cannot endorse the teaching that sex exists purely for the purpose of procreation. Such a
view, even though held by theologians, is utterly un-spiritual and smacks of the worst kind of
materialistic myopia. By this we mean that parenthood is but one of life’s functions, and it ought
not to obtain ascendancy over all others. Children require “parenting” for only a certain period of
their lives, and when parents fail to recognise this, untold unhappiness may result. Women,
particularly, have been shunted by culture and religion into the over sentimentalised and inflated
role of motherhood, and while starring in this role, have often forgotten how to be women.
Monkish prudery being unable to accept the feminine in any other aspect but the maternal, the
feminine ideal in Christendom became the mother, which condition in turn limited and
constricted the psychic and physical lives of women.

One of the great tasks of modern Gnosticism is to restore the dignity and importance of the
feminine within a spiritual context and this task includes liberating the feminine from such
confining expressions as “mother” and “virgin” (not to speak of the biological absurdity of
“virgin mother.”) As motherhood and fatherhood are but one of the possible by-products of
human sexuality, so it is obvious that sexuality has far more and vaster functions in life than
merely serving as a vehicle for procreation. Love, affection, relatedness, spiritual bonding; all of
these are facilitated and enhanced by sex. Sex, we need to state again, is beneficial to humanity
physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Procreation, on the other hand, is assuredly not
always beneficial to the human race. Gnostics ought to add their urgent voice to the ever swelling
chorus calling for effective programs and concentrated action against the population explosion. It
is obvious that what the world needs is not less sex but less offspring.

Sexual Libertarianism
Modern Gnostics are not antiquarians. It is not our purpose to try to resurrect the Gnostic
tradition in its ancient form, rather we strive to retranslate the available elements of Gnostic
wisdom into forms appropriate for the present. One of the most relevant features of ancient
Gnosticism is what might be called the libertarianism of the Gnostics. The available documents
authored by or attributed to such lights of the Gnosis as Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion,
Carpocrates, Epiphanes and others are all thoroughly libertarian in spirit. All of these Gnostic
teachers and leaders would have no difficulty in agreeing with the following example of
libertarian reasoning: “You as a person are better able to control your life than I am. Your life is
your personal affair, for· better or for worse, except as in the living of your life you may impair or
endanger the life and livelihood of others. No person nor set of persons on this earth has any
logical right to interfere with you except as you may do injury to them.” (A Libertarian’s
Platform by James C. Ingebretsen). Even as the political, economic, and religious lives of people
are their personal affair, so are their sexual lives. The talons of the authoritarian demiurges of this
world must be made to retract from the bedrooms of free men and women. Sexual relations which
do not harm or injure anyone should be of no concern to legislation and to the police. Vague
conjectures, based on private prejudice, and masquerading as statements about the “public good”
and the “moral health” of the body politic ought never to serve as the basis for laws and
ordinances.

It must be kept in mind that Gnostic libertarianism is not a mere matter of political or economic
expediency. In reality this libertarianism is rooted in the most fundamental features of the Gnostic
mythos, which has as its central theme the liberation of the incarcerated divine spirit from all
bonds imposed upon it by the false cosmos of the demiurge. Early Christian leaders, even when
not manifestly of the Gnostic fold, have often echoed the libertarian expressions of the Gnostic
attitude. St. Paul the Apostle’s bold statement: “All things are permissible unto me,” as well as St.
Augustine’s adage: “Love God and then do as you please” indicate that the Christian message
was intended to replace the law of Jehovah, with the sovereignty of the individual soul restored
by the new covenant of love. The relationship between freedom and love has been noted by many
wise souls in many traditions, including in that of India, where we find a formulation of the five
degrees of love through which the worshipper receives increase in what in our own tradition we
might call Gnosis. The first degree of love, we are told, is the love of servant for the master, the
second of comrade for comrade, the third that of parent for child, the fourth that of spouses for
each other, and the fifth, or highest degree, is defined as passionate and illicit, that is, not
sanctioned by any rule of society or of reason; a love totally unrestrained by any limitation
whatsoever.

This fivefold system of varieties of love shows not only an increase of intensity from stage to
stage, but also, and most importantly, an increase of freedom. What began as servitude ends in
total freedom. As restraint gives way to freedom, the force of love increases, until it becomes the
supreme liberating influence of being. Now this concept, or rather reality, is not unknown in
Western mysticism. Even as we may rightfully assume that the Gnostic mystery of the bridal
chamber was a spiritual rite, which yet was not without the physically sexual concomitant, so we
know that from a certain time onward the alternative mystical tradition of the West came to
abrogate the dualism of orthodox Christianity regarding love, and came to replace it with a
unitary experience which was at once spiritual and physical. Medieval Christian orthodoxy
insisted on the duality of eros (fleshly, or sexual love) and agape (spiritual love, or charity). The
Gnostic tradition, whether expressed by Valentinus in Alexandria, or by the troubadours in
medieval France has as its objective to “make the two into one” by uniting eros with agape and
replacing both with the higher synthesis, called by troubadours amor. Amor is neither fleshly nor
ghostly, neither sensual nor spiritual, but partaking of both qualities represents a totally new
quality. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This whole, or rather wholeness, is none
other than the terrestrial epiphany of the Pleroma. Sexual and non-sexual love combine to bring
forth the ineffable greatness in human life.

Here then is to be found the royal secret of sexuality. As consciousness frees itself of the
thraldom of the unconscious, and with it from the taboos, fears, and guilts inculcated by society
and exoteric religion, the liberating force of eros joins the inspiring energy of agape. This mystic
union then produces an explosion of freedom, a leap of liberty of unbelievable power. The sexual
libertarianism of the Gnostic has now born its aeonial fruit, the great dénouement of the age long
process has come. Sex is important because it liberates, and in order to liberate sexuality itself
must possess an optimum degree of freedom.

Humans are sexual and spiritual beings at once. When one or the other of these dualities is
repressed or neglected, disunity and torment prevail. When both are united in freedom, true
liberation and joy manifest. Therefore we must be free: Free to live intellectually, emotionally,
and indeed sexually. We must be free to experiment, to fail and to succeed, to be perplexed and to
be enlightened. The day of the old law of restriction must be declared defunct and the dawn of the
new law of freedom must be ushered in. In stating this we are not proclaiming a novelty. We have
the words of St. Paul to the Romans saying: “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he
may show his mercy to all.” Jesus said: “Judge not that you may not be judged.” And Heraclitus
the Greek sage wrote: “To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things
wrong and some right. Good and evil are one.” The great and terrible truth is: That we must be
free, lest we perish; that we are condemned to freedom, that the undying obligation of self-
liberation has been imposed upon us before the world began, yea, even before the creator of this
world came to be. We were not born to abide by the dark laws, and to wear the blackened chains
of the rulers of this world, but to be free, liberated consciously divine children of the light. As a
Gnostic hymn put it: “Ours is the voice of awakening in the eternal night.” Due to the design of
heaven this voice is uttered not by one, but by two; not by man alone or by woman by herself but
by both in unison. The voice of awakening is at least in part a sexual voice; the hymn is not
merely one of praise but of passion. Today as ever the words of Goethe remind us of the Gnostic
truth:

“Mann und Weib, Weib und Mann,

Reichenandie Gottheit an.”

(Man and Woman, Woman and Man,

Together they reach Divinity.)

The above essay first appeared in Abraxas 84, published by Ecclesia Gnostica, 1984, and is
reprinted here by permission of the author.

If you appreciate this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

STEPHAN A. HOELLER, Ph.D., is an author and lecturer on Gnosticism, Jungian psychology,

Theosophy, and other esoteric subjects. He is also presiding bishop of Ecclesia Gnostica
(www.gnosis.org) and director of studies of the Gnostic Society in Hollywood, California. His
works include Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing and Freedom:
Alchemy for a Voluntary Society (both published by Quest Books). Dr. Hoeller’s lectures are also
available for download from www.bcrecordings.com.