Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘gnosis’ occupies an unusually wide semantic register, stretching from the technical Greek term for salvific spiritual knowledge in late-antique religion to a living psychological category designating direct, non-inferential apprehension of psychic reality. Sri Aurobindo’s philosophical yoga tradition treats gnosis as the highest epistemic mode, utterly distinct from reason: where intellect proceeds by inference and remains shadowed by doubt, gnosis proceeds by identity and vision, grasping truth with a certainty that reason cannot achieve. Hans Jonas furnishes the most rigorous phenomenological account of ancient Gnosticism as a coherent spiritual type — one marked by cosmic dualism, anticosmic alienation, and the soul’s pneumatic ascent — insisting that its essential unity cannot be dissolved into mere genealogical borrowing from Hellenism or the Orient. Karen L. King’s critical historiography destabilizes that very unity, demonstrating that ‘gnosticism’ as a category is largely a modern scholarly and polemical construction, more productive of confusion than clarification. Stephan Hoeller bridges these horizons by reading Jung as a modern Gnostic, arguing that alchemy transmitted the Alexandrian gnosis intact into analytical psychology, so that the individuation process recapitulates the ancient pneumatic drama of self-knowledge and liberation. Marvin Meyer’s editorial work on the primary Nag Hammadi texts adds the dimension of textual plurality, showing how differently the word functions across Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Truth, and related documents. Henry Corbin extends the concept into Islamic esotericism, asking whether initiatory gnosis is a structural necessity of revealed religion. Across these positions, the central tension is irreducible: is gnosis a universal psychological capacity, or a historically specific religious formation requiring strict demarcation?