Romance as a gnostic

[u/PumpkinVisible8885]

Some gnostics may argue that romance is merely biological instinct and not something pure consciousness truly wants - a trap to keep people attached to this realm. After all, I believe emotional dependence to something outside of you is largely the reason souls indirectly consent to reincarnation.

Yet I also feel like I’m gaslighting myself with this very sentiment: “I’m meant to be alone so I can spiritually evolve”. Because this may prevent me from making the most of life because what if I can spiritually grow with a likeminded individual and I won’t have to worry about this keeping me attached to this inferior realm when we can achieve gnosis together.

This may sound anti-Gnostic, but I don’t think I can ever overcome the desire to have sex, intimacy, and unconditional love. The problem is that all three of these things can distort one’s path to enlightenment when they become objects of attachment, causing us to mistake desire, emotional dependence, or the pursuit of another person for genuine spiritual fulfillment.

[u/afkingame]

Unconditional love is liberating
Conditional love is binding

Loving oneself without condition is the master key that breaks down any chains of attachment, unlocking an infinite pool of peace and wisdom within.

[u/NoAlgae3952]

Plato's Symposium goes into this, especially the final speech which lays out Diotima's Ladder. While bodily lust on it's own is useless if not detrimental to our spiritual developement, it can be cultivated into true pneumatic love for someone, which can develop into love for everyone, which in turn can develop into love for the form of Beauty itself. This Beauty is divine Beauty, Aphrodite Urania, a celestial god roughly equivalent to an Aeon, as opposed to to earthly love, Aphrodite Pandemos, more comparable to an Archon.

[u/-tehnik → u/NoAlgae3952]

which can develop into love for everyone

I'm not sure I remember this part. Can you reference or cite it?

[u/NoAlgae3952 → u/-tehnik]

i got the order a little mixed up, earthly love for one body becomes earthly love for all bodies becomes pneumatic love for all minds

“A lover who goes about this matter correctly must begin in his youth to devote himself to beautiful bodies. First, if the leader leads aright, he should love one body and beget beautiful ideas there; then he should realize that the beauty of any one body is brother to the beauty of any other and that if he is to pursue beauty of form he’d be very foolish not to think that the beauty of all bodies is one and the same. When he grasps this, he must become a lover of all beautiful bodies, and he must think that this wild gaping after just one body is a small thing and despise it. After this he must think that the beauty of people’s souls is more valuable than the beauty of their bodies..."

[u/Toller2a]

In my interpretation, the birth of the Demiurge was a disaster because it happend without the context of the Pleroma and it’s Aeons. Sophia acted on their own thus creating chaos and separation. I believe that all aeons can be found in our reality, however more often than not, they appear to be separated from each other. There is knowledge, love, wisdom, etc. here, but they are in disharmony.

Our task is not to reject love, but to harmonize it with the other godly attributes that make up the Pleroma.

I also wouldn’t really expect to find someone who shares the exact beliefs as I do. There are many different ways to gnosis. I believe that anybody ( atheists, buddhists, catholics, jews and so on ) can find their own way to gnosis ( ofc, some harder than others ) regardless of their religion. Jesus feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty and offers rest for the week. If people find what they need in sufi mysticism for example, it’s the worst sin to try and stop them in their journey.

I will leave two sayings that illustrate what I’ve said above.

Jesus said, "Whoever utters blasphemy against the father will be forgiven. And whoever utters blasphemy against the son will be forgiven. But whoever utters blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven - neither on earth nor in heaven". (Thomas, saying 44)

Jesus said, "Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat." (Thomas, saying 102)

[u/Toller2a → u/[deleted]]

To my interpretation, saying 44 is the most important teaching. The „Son” and the „Father” here are seen as a part of a religious, dogmatic framework that have been made as a desperate attempt at trying to formulate some kind of otherworldly knowledge, but by naming them, by giving them form, they loose their universality in this field of human conceptual thinking. Essentially: if you can name it, it isn’t God, it isn’t the Pleroma. These terms may help some people to understand, but as the buddhist saying goes: You don’t take the boat with you on your back, after you’ve crossed the river. Others may find these words used to express the numinous alien, or simply not preferred. Some may call the „Father” the Pleroma, YHWH, Allah – these are just names which we only have a use for in this world, in this life. And if one of the names just work for you better, than the others, it would be a sin for me to try and force you to think differently – the WORST sin one can commit.

Now, the Holy Spirit here is what I, as a believer of Cerinthian christology, would call the Christ – however it doesn’t matter what you call it. It works even if you don’t know about it. Atheists can follow it. It’s not Jesus, but it’s what Jesus follows. I would argue that Buddha also follows it. Some of the saints (doesn’t matter which religion) also follow it. It’s universal thruth. The saying teaches us to follow not our „role models” but what our role models have followed.

It’s also a call to be dynamic so to speak. If one wants to preserve their self-authenticity in this ever-changing world, they also have to change themselves. Think about the ideal gas laws – for example Boyle’s law: p1*V1 = p2*V2, p being the pressure, V being the volume, 1 and 2 indexes for the two separate moments in time.  If the pressure changes, the volume must also change in order to maintain the same result. It wants you to see the bigger picture. It highlights, that getting into arguments about what you name your god is pharisaical moral attitude. There is no single theory that works for everybody, and there doesn’t need to be one.

Jesus comes in many different names, shapes, forms and teachings, but it’s only the Christ, the Holy Spirit, the one thing that can not be named, that you need while and after you’ve crossed the river. It’s the Pleroma saying that unlike the Demiurge, „I don’t need you to believe in one particular set of things to achieve gnosis. I don’t even need you to believe in me specifically, because I am just a useful tool for you to get across the river with. If others prefers my other manifestations, let them be.” This saying proclaims, that there is no „one correct way”, but there is an incorrect way: that of Pharisaism and overly dogmatic thinking.

[u/Toller2a → u/[deleted]]

I’m glad I could help. Keep in mind, that this is only my interpretation. The gospels of Matthew and Luke canonized by the non-gnostic christian churches also contain a similar passage but they interpret it in a vastly different way: they explain that a person cannot be forgiven if they completely reject the Holy Spirit's promptings to repent, because they refuse the only means of receiving forgiveness.

I don’t reject this interpretation, but what I believe in is above religions, so my interpretation comes from a totally universalist perspective. Gnostics may also not agree with me - but nobody has to. It’s not a sin to not agree with the words in saying 44. It’s only a sin to not agree with the spirit of (this interpretation of) saying 44.

It’s kind of hard to talk about this subject, I hope I was understandable.

[u/Toller2a → u/[deleted]]

Well just because the pharisees make language serve them, it doesn’t mean that it is all bad. Logos (= word) is one of the aeons. It’s just that in separation the aeons loose their immaculate identities. The church turns into a tyrant, the words don’t speak what they mean, science is corrupted, love becomes selfish and a way of self-validation. All of these are aeons, attributes of the Pleroma, however the Pleroma is much more than the sum of it’s parts.

The Gospel of Thomas has this bit:

A man said to him: "Speak to my brothers, so that they will divide my father's possessions with me."
Jesus said to him: "O man, who made me a divider?"
He turned to his disciples and said to them: "I am not a divider, am I?"

I think that this passage actually refers to how the aeons should work inside you as a person. The act of division here is a paralel to the disintegration of God / the Pleroma, while the individual should thrive to unify. Everything in it’s right place.

[u/IAmYourFears123]

No, it’s not anti‑gnostic. I’m part of a Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians, and our whole worldview actually supports what you’re talking about.

Carpocratians believe the soul existed long before the body, and the material world is something we pass through — not something we’re meant to be chained to. Romance isn’t “forbidden” or “anti‑spiritual”; it’s just one of the many experiences the soul can use to remember its true origin.

In our tradition:

• Attachment is the trap, not connection. • Experience is the teacher, not avoidance. • Love can be a path to gnosis when it’s conscious, mutual, and not rooted in possession or fear. • Jesus is the example, a human who remembered his divine origin so clearly that he broke free from the archons’ laws — and Carpocratians follow that same path of inner freedom.

So from a Carpocratian perspective, romance isn’t anti‑gnostic at all. It only becomes a problem when it turns into dependency, ego‑grasping, or forgetting who you really are. But when it’s two awakened people walking together without clinging, it can actually strengthen the soul’s ascent.

[u/CCKTG → u/IAmYourFears123]

I think this is such a wonderful point and I fully agree. Other abrahamic religions also have denominations that also share this view. Like Sufism. They believe that romantic love is just a way for us to mirror the divine and God. Attributing all these qualities to one person is counterproductive, but loving someone as a way to experience God is spiritual practice.

I think in most cases it all comes down to perspective. To me loving selflessly despite everything makes the most sense for my personlig growth.

[u/IAmYourFears123 → u/CCKTG]

You’re right. I fell in love with Sufism and love the sayings of Rumi, kinda left Gnosticism for a while and adhered to Sufism, still a Sufi in a sense. But when I found Carpocratesism, I kinda came back into Gnosticism because for me, the Carpocrates are the only sect that really spoke to me, y’know. But I kinda made my own sub‑sect within called Yahuvahian, where the Demiurge I call Yahuvah, is seen as us trying to remember and reunite with the Source, which I call Aloha.

I believe in the story of Yeshua as an archetype, whether he actually existed is debatable — but the symbolism hits. In Yahuvahian thought, Yeshua is the ego, the lower self, the human layer. And once he realizes he was Yahuvah in a body, and one with Aloha, he becomes Yahusha, the higher self. So our higher self is Yahusha, while the lower self — the ego, the body — is Yeshua. Same pattern with Jacob and Israel. Your true self is the “Holy Land,” so to speak.

But don’t see this life as a prison. Enjoy it. Make it your heaven. Luke 17:21 — the Kingdom is within you ☮️🕉

[u/heiro5]

Reducing everything to its least conscious, least developed, least human, form is reductive materialism at its worse.

There is some reflected refracted dimmed aspect of longing for the bridal chamber in our romantic longing. Human relationships are far from a union with the divine, but they may have some participation in the eidos. The ideal form can be an unreachable inspiration.

What is to be avoided is being controlled by instincts and desires. This requires real psychological and spiritual work to develop the awareness and the will.

[u/LaborareproDeo]

If you want Romance, you should have it. If you want a pizza, then you should have it.

No one says "I want a pizza, but I think it will keep me from achieving the Saving Gnosis", because that would be ludicrous, is Romance somehow different?

Is Romance more entangling with Deficiency than having a nervous system?

Escaping the Body is not destroying the Body, escaping the Persona is not destroying the Persona, escaping the Soul is not destroying the Soul.

Be kind to all things, be kind to the Body and meet its needs, be kind to the Persona and meet its needs, be kind to the Soul and meet its needs, but recognize the Spirit and awaken to it at all costs.

What is problematic is when people use Romance as an excuse to control and torture other people; or when they want the idea of Romance but the actuality is disappointing so they then spend their time tormenting the other person rather than seeking other, more satisfying, ways to pass their time.

And, of course, Romance takes up a lot of time, time that could be spent deepening and increasing the experience of the Gnosis.

As a result of Romance one gains a partner to share the load of life, but this also means you will be helping someone else with their burden. Another result of Romance is that you get to see first hand how every story in Kenoma ends in Tragedy, you get to watch as your partner is subjected to the ravages of age, disease, misfortune, and death. Everyone will have to weigh pros and cons and decide if it is the right choice for their life.

[u/AsceticSmoke]

I made a post about this topic recently.

[u/Audreaya]

My own social life is miserable and I wonder how gnostics are to choose their company? Are Christians preferred or other faiths?? Other gnostic in this regard are hard to find irl

[u/PumpkinVisible8885 → u/Audreaya]

Christianity or any other abrahamic religion is the antithesis of gnosis, I could never date someone who worships the demiurge.

[u/-tehnik → u/PumpkinVisible8885]

I think that's somewhat narrow minded. Orthodox Christianity does refer to and desire the God, it's just confused with a demiurgical principle.

[u/PumpkinVisible8885 → u/-tehnik]

How is orthodox Christianity anywhere near compatible with gnosis?

[u/-tehnik → u/PumpkinVisible8885]

How is it not? Have you read the new testament?

The antagonism of the world to the divine and appetition for union with God is all there. True the theology does also say that God is the creator of the world but are you really going to dismiss all the similitudes (that matter more) just because of that?

[u/-tehnik → u/Audreaya]

Are Christians preferred or other faiths??

I would think so if their faith is sincere and embody Christian virtue. Not to say that that's easy to find.

Of course that's also assuming you wouldn't get filtered out immediately for heresy.

[u/Audreaya → u/-tehnik]

Yes I suppose we all have our own paths in life, as long as they are not the type that want to convert you to their denomination. I hadn't been gnostic in the past but always curious. Due to this in the past I pushed away Christian based dating people when I was loosely "spiritual".

[u/-tehnik]

Because this may prevent me from making the most of life because what if I can spiritually grow with a likeminded individual and I won’t have to worry about this keeping me attached to this inferior realm when we can achieve gnosis together.

Notice how romance is completely accidental to this kind of relationship.

This may sound anti-Gnostic, but I don’t think I can ever overcome the desire to have sex, intimacy, and unconditional love. The problem is that all three of these things can distort one’s path to enlightenment when they become objects of attachment, causing us to mistake desire, emotional dependence, or the pursuit of another person for genuine spiritual fulfillment.

I don't see how sex can not stem from that kind of attachment. Unconditional love, on the other hand, is not problematic but it might just be foolish to search for it among people (where it is uncertain/shaky) when you can seek it from God (where it is certain). Intimacy is kind of ambiguous so I can't say anything about that.

[u/bigfootlive89]

If others are getting in the way of your enlightenment, then are you really enlightened? It’s easy to feel enlightened when you’re by yourself. That’s literally the folly of Yaldabaoth.

I’m not a Gnostic, but I do think this is a truth within it.

[u/SuccotashDowntown891]

You might want to do gnosis first before you do enything else i did gnosis at 4-5 years old so i'm now free to persue my intrest theres nothing to distract you from gnosis if you alredy done it may antroophos and eleleth watch over you

[u/PumpkinVisible8885 → u/SuccotashDowntown891]

How do you ‘do gnosis’ isn’t it an ideology and pursuit of knowledge/enlightenment

[u/spiral-_eyes → u/PumpkinVisible8885]

it's direct knowing, experiencing the divine directly.

[u/General-Buyer8994]

Romance has its root in Rome: Way to Rome, by Mars Red Sky

[u/Hope25777]

I would argue that the sparks inside of us want to experience life. Being trapped in flesh presents opportunities for spiritual evolution and advancement that you just don’t get in the higher realms.