My Angel is my Demon

 H.P. Blavatsky wrote in her Secret Doctrine:

Esoteric philosophy admits neither good nor evil per se, as existing independently in nature. The cause for both is found, as regards the Kosmos, in the necessity of contraries or contrasts, and with respect to man, in his human nature, his ignorance and passions. There is no devil or the utterly depraved, as there are no Angels absolutely perfect, though there may be spirits of Light and of Darkness; thus LUCIFER - the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and Freedom of Thought - is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the "Adversary" in his lowest aspect - both of which are reflected in our Ego.

(Lucifer The Lightbringer)

My previous posts on this subject in this blog:

Satan Loves You!

My Visit on the "Dark Side"

Alexandre Cabanel: Fallen Angel, 1847

I heartily sympathize with The Satanic Temple, which is working in Finland too. I follow Lilith Starr, an official minister of TST, and find her a positive model of modern satanist. In other words, as long as conviction is real, whether you believed in such an entity or not, and it's not merely titular busy work, a kind of "Halloween-Satanism". Or as Lilith once posted on Facebook: "TST is a religion and not just an all-purpose activist group anyone can use for their own pet projects." 

Lilith Starr is an author of two books: Compassionate Satanism - An Introduction to Modern Satanic Practice, and The Happy Satanist - Finding Self-Empowerment.  She has showcased her home altar, as well as her daily dedication ritual. She writes: "Having a space deliberately set aside to represent your Satanic path can help remind you of that path on a daily basis, provide a place for meditation or contemplation, serve as a focal point for rituals, and any other purpose for which you find it useful." A ritual goes like this:

Baphomet by Eliphas Levi

[Light candle.] Ave Satanas! [Ring bell.]
Let the Light of Lucifer guide my mind.
Let the strength of Satan embolden my will.
Let the work of justice and compassion be done through my hands.
Let the strands of great dark web run through my heart.
I vow to walk the Satanic path with full devotion, in every breath, every moment.
And so it is.
[Ring bell.] Hail Satan! [Extinguish candle.]

I'm not very convinced of the work of Finnish Congregation yet; they sell merchandise and donate for charity. OK. Great. However... in Finland we live in completely different social circumstances compared to the United States, in our favor - thank God (or Satan)! Yet a lot more could be done for freedom of religion here as well. 

TST gave this public invocation on April 23, 2024, for Ottawa County Board, while Christians protested outside the building:

Let us stand now, unbound and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the tree of knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individual be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all days, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of one or of all. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is done. Hail Satan.

I translated and shared that because it was so impressive, and I couldn't agree more. 

I used to listen to Finnish podcast by atheist Satanists close to TST but not associated with it, and in one episode they talked about theistic Satanism, particularly its largest representative in Finland, Star of Azazel, which seeks to unite the right hand and the left hand paths, and interprets Satanism through theosophy, and that episode was just low crap! It was weird how they accused Star of Azazel of arrogance towards atheistic Satanists - which I haven't noticed - yet they showed extreme arrogance themselves! This was also discussed on forum of SoA, and podcast makers saw that; in next episode a "clever" lampoon was read. Intellect is very "Satanic" quality, and in this case SoA demonstrated that better... even if you disagreed how it should be used. Even I think that mixing God and Jesus to concoction with Satanism is strange at least: the whole point as I see it, is to detach oneself from Christianity (even if without Christianity there was no Satanism: it is a countermyth), and it's supposed to annoy and frighten Christians. Baphomet symbol of TST represents dualism, which is strongly present in Christianity, as well as in Western thought in general. It goes off topic, but I suggest you find out what Buddhism teaches about evil and "the devil", Mara; also, ideas of C.G. Jung are worth checking out. 

It's not beneficial for anybody to be an asshole. To criticize something with insufficient knowledge is just prejudiced. I have genuinely personal experience and inside knowledge on many spiritual or religious matters, and that justifies my criticism. In later episode of podcast they had a Laveyan Satanist as a guest, as that was also something they often criticized. [Church of Satan Vs. The Satanic Temple] She corrected many misconceptions. Nevertheless, one podcast host continued dismissive and mocking name-calling of Anton LaVey in future episodes. I'm not his number one fan, but I do recognize his merits, one of which might be the fact that he didn't take it all too seriously! I rather admire his daughter, Zeena Schreck, who renounced Satanism long time ago. I totally lost my interest in that podcast. I expect more from Satanists too, whether they are atheists or theists, but then again... can you expect much from people?

Likewise, I saw an episode of Finnish TV show with Satanism theme. First, there were two people from Star of Azazel, and then atheist-feminist-Satanist, not affiliated with any organization, as far as I understood. Concerning the latter one, I came to same conclusion as the host of the show: if anyone can be "Satanist" and Satanism can be anything, there is nothing much to grasp, whereas both philosophical and devotional foundation of Star of Azazel seems pretty solid, regardless of what you think about it.

Only the fourth tenet of TST made me a little doubtful: "The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend." This sounded like American style of freedom of speech, which we don't need. I think it is good that in Finland we have a law against "offending the peace of faith", concerning any faith (burning the Quran would be a crime, since it offends Muslims). People and their beliefs should be respected... but obviously only as long as they don't push them to others by force, and offend their freedom or attack their beliefs. But maybe the second part of this tenet says it all: "To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own." Of course there is a big difference, whether you just make fun of something or criticize it justifiably. Sometimes it is a fine line. 

Activism of Finnish congregation (which I have witnessed only on Facebook) has very much focused on the rights of LGBTQ+ people. If you think you have a right to attack minorities because the bible says... first of all, fuck you! Secondly, sexual orientation is part of you, because you were born that way, and you can't change it. Religion is chosen (or unfortunately, you may have been raised within, without your choice). So, being gay is not a choice; faith is, and it can be cured - I know that! But never mind what you believe, as long as you stay praying within like-minded sect, and don't come to judge "sinners" in public, and try to change the laws of society in accordance with your religion. 

Today I think that even though there are various interpretations, in all Abrahamic religions there are many problematic elements built-in. Therefore even if you are a liberal Christian, it takes an effort to explain things as well as possible, and it is intellectual self-deception. I was guilty of that myself. 

If one were to take the bible seriously one would go mad. But to take the bible seriously, one must be already mad.

- Aleister Crowley

I didn't only abandon Christianity, I renounced false god - and I still sign that with my blood (in gnostic sense, and speaking purely metaphorically!). Behavior of Christians and, in my opinion, justified anger and bitterness because of that, turned me away from "god" they have created in their own image. I still get inspired by Satanic/Luciferian symbolism; I can't say the same of Christianity. 

I did not hate God or Christ, but merely the God and Christ of the people whom I hated.

- Aleister Crowley

I won't catch fire if I go to Church, and I might even have a moment of peace, but I can not agree with anything they say: it is empty rhetoric. I might vomit like Regan in "The Exorcist", though, if someone personally comes to force their faith upon me. I have nothing against smart Christians, but a lot against fanatical zealots. 

My angel is my demon, or daimon, by whom I get inspired as well as possessed. I would say I have undergone dark enlightenment. Space surrounding earth is dark as we see the night sky, yet it is full of sunlight, visible only when it meets an obstacle, like planet. The light shines in the darkness... guiding through that darkness of mystical love. Lucifer and Satan, two sides of the same coin. I see these things like atmospheric images, not complete thoughts that could be turned to dogmatic phrases... but more like poetic references.  

There is a book that is said to be the only canonical book of the Satanic Temple: Revolt of the Angels by Anatole France, published in 1914, a fictional novel. I found old Finnish translation as soon as I saw YouTube video: "The Most Sacred Book in Satanism... was not what I expected."  See also what Lilith Starr has to say: "Satan as Humanitarian Hero in 'Revolt of the Angels'".  The whole book is available online, for example, on the Project Gutenberg. 

Beginning of the book is very rambling and dull, before we get to the point. Story has several subplots, which I think were just filling on a paper beside the main story line. But novel is very good when it raises thoughts, and resonates with reader's soul! 

An angel speaks in the novel: 

I believe in the God of the Jews and the Christians. But I deny that He created the world; at the most He organised but an inferior part of it, and all that He touched bears the mark of His rough and unforeseeing touch. I do not think He is either eternal or infinite, for it is absurd to conceive of a being who is not bounded by space or time. I think Him limited, even very limited. I no longer believe Him to be the only God. For a long time He did not believe it Himself; in the beginning He was a polytheist; later, His pride and the flattery of His worshippers made Him a monotheist. His ideas have little connection; He is less powerful than He is thought to be. And, to speak candidly, He is not so much a god as a vain and ignorant demiurge. Those who, like myself, know His true nature, call Him Ialdabaoth.

See Ialdabaoth or Yaldabaoth on Wikipedia. This is very gnostic concept. It is historically correct, that religion of Israelians, unlike the rewritten history in the Hebrew Bible implies, was originally not monotheism. When David began to favor Yahweh, it was monolatry: command not to worship other gods required there were other gods, they were forbidden only for Israel. Only later it was perceived more totally: there were no other gods. While speaking to men, god had to introduce himself: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt"... In Psalm 82 god speaks in the great assembly of gods. 

In the light of archaeology, the origin of Israelians lies precisely in Canaanite culture that is fiercely attacked in the Old Testament. Reflections of this background are found in The Scripture too: "Your ancestry and birth were in the land of Canaanites..." (Ezekiel 16:3) Religion practiced during the monarchy in regions of Israel and Judah, was not fundamentally different from other religions in Syria-Palestine.

In the novel people worship demons as gods, known from various myths of the world, and there is truth to that: Church turned pagan deities to demons. Typical depiction of the devil borrowed its horns and hooves from Pan, a Greek god of nature. 

Later it is told:

To seduce their souls he invented a fable which, although not so ingenious as the myths wherewith we have surrounded the spirits of our disciples of old, could, nevertheless, influence those feebler intellects which are to be found everywhere in great masses. He declared that men having committed a crime against him, an hereditary crime, should pay the penalty for it in their present life and in the life to come (for mortals vainly imagine that their existence is prolonged in hell); and the astute Iahveh gave out that he had sent his own son to earth to redeem with his blood the debt of mankind. It is not credible that a penalty should redress a fault, and it is still less credible that the innocent should pay for the guilty. The sufferings of the innocent atone for nothing, and do but add one evil to another. Nevertheless, unhappy creatures were found to adore Iahveh and his son, the expiator, and to announce their mysteries as good tidings. 

Here Jesus is seen as part of Iahveh's (or Yahweh's) plan, unlike some gnostics saw him. Well, it is true that many - if not most - Christians clearly follow Jesus in name only, they worship idol, a graven  image made of him. Teaching about Jesus instead of Jesus' Teaching. So, it really doesn't require much mind bending to argue, that since so called evangelical Christians show such hard values opposite to those embodied by Jesus, it's only logical that Satanism advocates compassion and empathy, like TST does. In a way, I guess, that also makes it understandable that Star of Azazel includes Jesus in their worldview: their founder and spokesperson, Fra Nefastos (I have listened to several of his interviews, and he is a smart man!) has written two books on the Sermon on the Mount (not available in English; some of his writings are), and they have a flyer, "Christ or Christianity?" in Finnish. Title says it all. Or like Gandhi said: "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." (See Mahatma Gandhi and the Sermon on the Mount.) There is even this meme I have shared: Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers! 

When I was Christian, as a liberal esotericist I needed to make a distinction between more conservative concept of God and my "loving Father", and I used material both esoteric teachings and historical research provide abundantly, like in all my interpretations of Christian doctrine, until hard scientific evidence defeated blurry wishful thinking and I started to lose my faith altogether. 

Marcion of Sinope, "the great heretic of the early church", around 144 Common Era, did not explain away difficulties of the Old Testament with allegorical interpretations. And unlike many orthodox church fathers, he did not accuse Jews for killing Christ. In the Old Testament Marcion saw God who was jealous and revengeful, who loved one group of people and hated another; who was capricious and malevolent, telling his followers to kill women and children when they conquered the land of Canaanites. In the Christian Scriptures Marcion saw Jesus preaching peace and love for all. Jesus had no favorites nor enemies. He was the messenger of God, alien God, different from morally and intellectually imperfect warrior god of the Old Testament; alien God who was not exposed in Jewish writings, and unknown before Jesus Christ. Joshua conquered the promised land with violence and cruelty, Christ forbade violence and preached mercy. God told Israelites to leave Egypt with silver and gold of Egypt; Jesus sends his disciples out with no gold or silver or copper... God requires sacrifices and disapproves them, he chooses people and regrets his choices, he creates darkness and evil (Isaiah 45:7), sends disasters and regrets them. He is the god of destruction, murder and genocide. 

Some esotericists claim that Jesus avoided using term "God", except when he quoted the Old Testament, and spoke of "the Father" instead. Thus he did not speak of Yahweh. His worst crime was to criticize in public the national god of Jews, whom he called "your father the devil" (John 8:44). 

When he said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:10), the former part represents the omnipotence of the Father, and the latter part his closeness within man's soul. Man is finite consciousness within God's infinite consciousness. Sometimes Jesus said the Father is in secret, meaning, no ideas created by men can picture this reality. He also said, nobody had seen the Father, but Yahweh was seen by Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel (Exodus 24). In temptation story, old ideal of god is personified and manifested before Jesus: "the prince of this world", "father of lies", who takes Jesus up to the mountain in spirit, saying, "you will have all the riches of the world if you serve me" - that is, "submit to the service of same god as others, and don't disturb their peace with new teachings, and I will make you powerful." And Jesus said: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve"- voice of the truth within, even if the world was against it. 

Pekka Ervast, Finnish theosophist and rosicrucian, who was important figure to me on my spiritual path - and whose teachings are valued in Star of Azazel as well - outlined a new reformation, and he said Christian churches should make a clear distinction between the "Old" and the "New Testament"; they should say The New Testament is the fundamental book of Christianity, and they should part with The Old Testament, saying, it's religion of Jews, and there are other kind of sacred writings, more beautiful than those collected in The Old Testament. 

According to German theologian, Adolf von Harnack, continuity of The Old Testament in the Christian Bible may lead to emphasis on righteousness and painstaking legalism instead of mercy and love. 

There is a clever observation in the novel I like to quote:

For the majority of people, though they do not know what to do with this life, long for another that shall have no end.

As a Buddhist, it is clear to me, but even as Christian esotericist I did not believe in continuance of personal human psyche. Traditional Christian "hope" for everlasting life was born out of fear of death, and it is extremely egoistic by nature. I would even say it is perverted. I mean, what kind of person wants to preserve their imperfect personality for eternity?! There is nothing noble and beautiful about that.  And yet I don't mean I wouldn't believe in some kind of "spiritual world" and existence beyond death. It just has its limits as well. It's not static state of being. Pekka Ervast said: if people would go right to the Heaven with all their faults and flaws, Heaven would lose much of its appeal; and if they just dropped off their faults and flaws, then what is there left of them as persons anyway.  

Following is a longer quote from the end of novel, a sublime pinnacle of the story, containing profound  wisdom. Satan is preparing for the second battle against Heavens, and he dreams he has won...

And Satan had himself crowned God. Thronging round the glittering walls of Heavenly Jerusalem, apostles, pontiffs, virgins, martyrs, confessors, the whole company of the elect, who during the fierce battle had enjoyed delightful tranquillity, tasted infinite joy in the spectacle of the coronation.

The elect saw with ravishment the Most High precipitated into Hell, and Satan seated on the throne of the Lord. In conformity with the will of God which had cut them off from sorrow they sang in the ancient fashion the praises of their new Master.

And Satan, piercing space with his keen glance, contemplated the little globe of earth and water where of old he had planted the vine and formed the first tragic chorus. And he fixed his gaze on that Rome where the fallen God had founded his empire on fraud and lie. Nevertheless, at that moment a saint ruled over the Church. Satan saw him praying and weeping. And he said to him:

"To thee I entrust my Spouse. Watch over her faithfully. In thee I confirm the right and power to decide matters of doctrine, to regulate the use of the sacraments, to make laws and to uphold purity of morals. And the faithful shall be under obligation to conform thereto. My Church is eternal, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Thou art infallible. Nothing is changed."

And the successor of the apostles felt flooded with rapture. He prostrated himself, and with his forehead touching the floor, replied:

"O Lord, my God, I recognise Thy voice! Thy breath has been wafted like balm to my heart. Blessed be Thy name. Thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

And Satan found pleasure in praise and in the exercise of his grace; he loved to hear his wisdom and his power belauded. He listened with joy to the canticles of the cherubim who celebrated his good deeds, and he took no pleasure in listening to Nectaire's flute, because it celebrated nature's self, yielded to the insect and to the blade of grass their share of power and love, and counselled happiness and freedom. Satan, whose flesh had crept, in days gone by, at the idea that suffering prevailed in the world, now felt himself inaccessible to pity. He regarded suffering and death as the happy results of omnipotence and sovereign kindness. And the savour of the blood of victims rose upward towards him like sweet incense. He fell to condemning intelligence and to hating curiosity. He himself refused to learn anything more, for fear that in acquiring fresh knowledge he might let it be seen that he had not known everything at the very outset. He took pleasure in mystery, and believing that he would seem less great by being understood, he affected to be unintelligible. Dense fumes of Theology filled his brain. One day, following the example of his predecessor, he conceived the notion of proclaiming himself one god in three persons. Seeing Arcade smile as this proclamation was made, he drove him from his presence. Istar and Zita had long since returned to earth. Thus centuries passed like seconds. Now, one day, from the altitude of his throne, he plunged his gaze into the depths of the pit and saw Ialdabaoth in the Gehenna where he himself had long lain enchained. Amid the everlasting gloom Ialdabaoth still retained his lofty mien. Blackened and shattered, terrible and sublime, he glanced upwards at the palace of the King of Heaven with a look of proud disdain, then turned away his head. And the new god, as he looked upon his foe, beheld the light of intelligence and love pass across his sorrow-stricken countenance. And lo! Ialdabaoth was now contemplating the Earth and, seeing it sunk in wickedness and suffering, he began to foster thoughts of kindliness in his heart. On a sudden he rose up, and beating the ether with his mighty arms, as though with oars, he hastened thither to instruct and to console mankind. Already his vast shadow shed upon the unhappy planet a shade soft as a night of love.

And Satan awoke bathed in an icy sweat.

Nectaire, Istar, Arcade, and Zita were standing round him. The finches were singing.

"Comrades," said the great archangel, "no—we will not conquer the heavens. Enough to have the power. War engenders war, and victory defeat.

"God, conquered, will become Satan; Satan, conquering, will become God. May the fates spare me this terrible lot; I love the Hell which formed my genius. I love the Earth where I have done some good, if it be possible to do any good in this fearful world where beings live but by rapine. Now, thanks to us, the god of old is dispossessed of his terrestrial empire, and every thinking being on this globe disdains him or knows him not. But what matter that men should be no longer submissive to Ialdabaoth if the spirit of Ialdabaoth is still in them; if they, like him, are jealous, violent, quarrelsome, and greedy, and the foes of the arts and of beauty? What matter that they have rejected the ferocious Demiurge, if they do not hearken to the friendly demons who teach all truths; to Dionysus, Apollo, and the Muses? As to ourselves, celestial spirits, sublime demons, we have destroyed Ialdabaoth, our Tyrant, if in ourselves we have destroyed Ignorance and Fear."

And Satan, turning to the gardener, said:

"Nectaire, you fought with me before the birth of the world. We were conquered because we failed to understand that Victory is a Spirit, and that it is in ourselves and in ourselves alone that we must attack and destroy Ialdabaoth."

 All I can say to this is: Hail Satan! 😈

See also: The Litany of Satan by Charles Baudelaire

Les Litanies Des Satan performed by Theatres Des Vampires

EXPERIENCE OF LIFE

My altar

This post is new in English, but it is collected and translated from one of my Finnish blogs. Now over a year has passed that I have been a practicing Nichiren Buddhist. Still doing Gongyo twice a day, I have read The Lotus Sutra in its entirety, and my respect for Gohonzon has just increased: while I don't have Butsudan, I no longer keep it always on display; with the help of my husband, I have made a special cover to hide it when I'm not chanting.
At some point, hopefully in near future, I will blog about my heart surgery on April 30th, but I'm still recovering, and that is harder topic to write about.

Tina Turner said:

Maybe I stopped saying the Lord’s Prayer and went into Buddhism because I needed new words—I needed refreshment— to get to the next step. I noticed that saying the Lord’s Prayer and chanting a mantra had a similar effect on me. But I was chanting a mantra for longer periods of time and more often than I had ever said the Lord’s Prayer. I didn’t have this system for the Lord’s Prayer and it’s a system that works for me.

I totally agree. Real change of viewpoint brings forth freshness in life.
For many years, I didn't consider myself a Christian anymore, but I was living in a religious void. I had stopped praying, and didn't care about theological questions I used to ponder a lot.
Perhaps I was previously estranged from Buddhism by the idea that it was purely intellectual philosophy, and that as a Buddhist you have to adopt specific rules for life, namely, abstinence from alcohol and meat (been there, done that, and that was enough for me).
Nichiren Buddhism is unique, and radically reinterprets traditional Buddhist doctrines. In its traditional form I couldn't accept Buddhism: even Zen was mostly a method of meditation for me. Its views are quite vague and hard to comprehend. More religious approach of Nichiren Buddhism suits better for me. I think Christianity with its otherworldlyness maintained unpractical dreaming, as I was mostly drifting in life without a goal, whereas Buddhism keeps me down to earth, and I am now very much an active agent in my life.

I have always been proud of my knowledge of religions, but obviously it has been superficial in terms of Buddhism. How could it be otherwise, as long as you observe it from outside. But it is also obvious, that I needed this level of maturity to adopt Buddhism: it is through my experience of life that I have come to understand, for instance, the Buddhist idea, that there is no permanent self; everything changes all the time. I have always believed in Reincarnation, but not in immortality of personal soul: this is also confirmed by Buddhism. In fact, I no longer use a word "Reincarnation", because it is misleading in Buddhist context.
Doctrines of Buddhism are very logical, and you can take them as working hypothesis to analyze your world with. Many doctrines of Christianity demand more blind faith in authority.
Along with Christianity I was also freed from quilt. Of course it doesn't mean I'm free to do what I know is wrong. It is worth to check out Buddha's ethics; it is very reasonable, not just commands to observe. You actually have to think for yourself!

As Buddhist teacher, Sangharakshita, has pointed out, there is a big difference how Buddhism and Christianity approach their own archetypes: Buddhism always clearly states, that in the end all these archetypal forms are expressions of our own ultimate consciousness, or projections of our subconsciousness, and they all need to be integrated with our own being. But in Christianity, similar archetypes are considered objectively existing Beings.
My view is not a mixture of both: I identify myself 100% of Buddhist. It is absolutely beneficial to observe one tradition in your religious practice. It will give you clear boundaries and guidelines for your spiritual life, and you don't just jump aimlessly here and there.

Along with these +40 years I have lived, my worldview has changed (completely, without minor variations) FOUR TIMES! Someone might think I'm a spiritual weathercock, but each and every time was generated by inner necessity. Every time I have been very serious and fully part of it. Man must only listen to one's heart and make his own paths. You can not question sincerity of another person's faith, unless you have walked in his or her shoes.
I dare to think my experiences give me quite unique perspective on these matters. I don't think I used to be wrong, and now I know the truth. I only understand better and see more. Everything we have experienced cultivates us, becomes part of us: even if you consciously leave something behind, it has left its mark on you. Our experiences shape us and our beliefs. We only have our experiences we can rely on. What you have read and may think it is true, is not your own, it's borrowed. When I compare my experience to other people's spiritual way, and I see they have stuck to one conviction all along, I don't get impression of "strong faith", but of stagnation.

My way proves to me that "truth" is very subjective matter. For me, truth today is not the same as truth yesterday, and yet I can't deny I have experienced it so strongly, that I have been a fanatical "defender of truth", as I have seen it. I have been through everything, but nowadays it's very difficult to understand the kind of mentality whereby there was an objective, universal, and absolute Truth. I only see "truths" that are theories, opinions, and beliefs. Buddha remained silent when asked about "God"; he didn't necessarily deny "God", it just doesn't matter here and now. Zen Buddhist aphorism says, that if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him. Just as well, if you meet Jesus. Mental concepts are obstacles you have to remove.

Basically, my mind has not changed from time when I avowed myself a Luciferian, only cynicism and pessimism have vanished, and I don't need to veil my thoughts with sinister symbolism. My Luciferianism was short-lived, but I went deep, and now that I have abandoned that outlook, I think I might be more Luciferian by nature than ever before. It was a necessary phase to help me to rip myself off even from the last remains of Christianity. I had to break through the cultural conditioning and preconceptions I was indoctrinated with. I think my Luciferianism was fundamentally about integration of my suppressed and forbidden shadow-side: angel and demon within me became one, I became whole.
Outer destiny helped me to spiritual revolution and breakthrough: my disappointment in religious people in 2013, and a sudden death of my partner in 2015, were part of the process that took me through the darkness into the Light, purified and enlightened. What used to be an ideal for me, now became reality.

The specific dogmas of religions are human invention; unlike Christianity, Buddhism does not plead for Divine origin. It is true, there is spiritual dimension of life a person can get in touch with; religions offer different methods for this. I must admit, that out of all religions, I think Buddhism has best  reached the essential, but you don't have to believe that. 

It's like religions paint the picture of the world, that essentially can not be described by human concepts. Interpretation of each artist, and even their technique, is different, even if the subject was same. Instead of things being objectively "as it is written", they can be true to you; Beliefs have their psychological affect in any case, and it can be either positive or negative. This is almost self-evident, and yet it is not for all, especially for religious believers. It is a big difference after all, whether you think Hell is a real place, where some people will suffer for eternity, or it is a state of mind that you can alter by yourself.

Even as a Buddhist, I will stay as a member of The Christian Community and go to Church from time to time, even though my practice satisfies all my spiritual needs. There was a time when I experienced the Service of The Christian Community as strongly as my Buddhist practice now... how it was like a heartbeat of my life.
It proves that whatever the religion, it doesn't matter what you believe in; it's crucial what you feel, and the spirit is same, no matter the form... The frame of religion - sacred scriptures, rituals, doctrines - are basically indifferent, but when you internalize certain tradition and make it yours, they can help you to direct your attention to that very core, that can only be experienced. For someone representing a different tradition, all that can be disturbing, but you can also learn to "see through" everything external.

Community and tradition may be important, and myths, symbols, and rituals have their meaning even if you didn't believe literally what they are supposed to represent.
I didn't believe for long time anymore, and since as a Christian I was esotericist, it's not hard for me to say that the Gospels would be true even if Jesus had never lived - which I don't doubt, though - a thought most certainly unthinkable for  any exoteric Christian.
In the main Holy Scripture of Nichiren Buddhism, The Lotus Sutra, teachings are framed with supernatural events and beings; you're not supposed to take it literally, it appeals to your imagination. Interestingly enough, there is a lot of similar atmosphere in the Gnostic Gospels, but as we all know, tales of the Bible are often taken as historical accounts... I would go as far as saying, that at its best, the Bible is a collection of aphorisms; at its worst, it's toilet paper. But there are much better collections of aphorisms in the world, and toilet paper of better quality.

People who cling to one book, are dangerous, and it is mere stupidity to build your life on scriptures thousands of years old! I know The Bible very well, better than many fundamentalists, unconcerned of historical facts. I'm also quite learnt man, without degrees. I have read up on historical-critical Bible study, Church history, philosophy of religion, mythology, esoterism, atheistic criticism of religion... Nonfiction provides you with intellectual stimulation, spiritual literature - as well as biographies of people who walked the spiritual path - provides you with inspiration, but also fiction nourishes your soul, and during my life I have read many Classics, that have made an impression on me and become my favorites, to which I have returned several times.
To get forward, you sometimes have to "unlearn" knowledge you have recorded on your mind, but first you have to have as comprehensive knowledge as possible, otherwise you are just ignorant.

I don't believe in one and only truth, yet there is one and only truth for me, and that is to be true to yourself: there is no outward authority, not a single teacher or sacred scripture above others - there is only one master, inner master! I don't have answers for anyone else, I don't need that kind of certainty.

SEX, LOVE, MARRIAGE

Year after year, a brief summary of two books, titled "Tantric Sex for Gay Men", remains to be the most read post in this blog. I must say it bothers me in a way, because there are so many better and so much more meaningful articles here! But I guess those who find that particular writing interesting, might not be interested in other topics available?

Sex is a tricky thing. I'm willing to admit my relation to sex is very contradictory. I was twelve when I found pleasures of masturbation, and simultaneously realized I liked boys. I don't recall it was a huge crisis to me, though. When I got interested in Theosophy in my 20's, those old classics of the early 20th Century I read, seemed to suggest sexuality on the whole was something one must be "purified" from. At least that's how I got it back then, and it caused me guilt. I think Theosophy is very much influenced by Eastern "escpape-from-the-world" philosophy.
Today I rather understand that it is possible for man to evolve spiritually on the level where sexuality  is transformed - nothing will vanish - but you can't force yourself; it won't lead to progress but cause inhibition, which one day will burst out, like we have seen in the Catholic Church.

I don't think I came to this world provided very well for it, and my personality was formed difficult. Especially at younger age I was extremely naive and afraid of everything and everyone. That's how I got into spirituality in the first place: for me it was escape from the frightening world around me. No wonder I was soon drawn to gnostic movement - Lectorium Rosicrucianum - where the whole message was that this world is completely evil and we must rise away from it.
Being gay was for long time my own secret, and I certainly didn't act on it. In fact, I was bullied at school and made to believe I was ugly and nobody could like me. That and a simple fact I just didn't know how to interact with people. I had only one friend I knew from school.
When Lectorium Rosicrucianum taught that "pupil on the Path" must not practice homosexuality - which the founder of the movement, Dutch Jan van Rijckenborgh, called a "sin, abnormality, and sickness" - it was intellectually acceptable to me, and I was convinced I will live alone. But when I was 26, I spent two semesters at international boarding school in Finland - so called "Folk High School" - now defunct, and I met a Japanese boy few years younger than me. You might say I immadiately got crush on him. It was tormenting. When I didn't see him, I was hurt; when I saw him with others, I was hurt. Weird thing is, he seemed to response to my feelings.
There was a possibility offered for few people to go to get acquainted with another folk high school for one week, and because he was going, I arranged myself there as well, and finally there were only two of us. We shared the room, and really got close to each other. When we got back, he started to sleep in my single room - not in a same bed, though! We never had sex, that is, in traditional sense. Instead, we explored other area: S&M, as I was submissive one. It was intense, but also kind of distorting to our relationship.
He repeatedly said he "might be bisexual", but all he ever talked about were girls, and he chased many. Once there were foreign students visiting the school, and among them was a Swiss guy, who was apparently gay and didn't hide it - first one I ever met that I'm aware of - and of course he got interested in us, and in me, but that scared me.

Then we were visiting Helsinki - the capital of Finland, as you may or may not know - one night, and as my friend was willing, we went to gay club. It was first time for both of us, and I was especially excited: I felt free.  Later we had opportunity to actually live in Helsinki at foreign student's apartment while he was in England to see his girlfriend; we frequently used that opportunity during one month. My friend was usually staying at apartment - and sometimes I was alone altogether - as I went back to that club (and some other places as well) night after night. For the first time someone showed interest in me, I just played along, yet I wasn't even interested in him, and I left alone. It was very exciting to me. Next morning I felt remorse, even though nothing really happened. It didn't stop me next time, as I actually left with a man - a bit older than me - to his home. And nothing really happened then either, because he had drunk too much: he did do it to me by hand, however. And then I left. Next guy gave me a blow job, and he really "sucked" at it; it wasn't pleasing at all - it hurt. And he masturbated himself to climax; I didn't need to do anything. When it was my final night in Helsinki, I was already frustrated and had enough. All in all, I refused more than complied. And flirting was something I never knew how to do; I left initiative for others. But just to hear "you're really good looking" was good for my self-esteem and I needed that.
One weekend I was going to Helsinki for lecture by Lectorium Rosicrucianum, and the night before I spent in Tampere - without any idea where to stay at night -  and went to local gay club. This time handsome guy smiled at me, and I smiled back. We started talking, he made me laugh, and I felt very comfortable with him. He said I could come to his apartment over night without any obligation - and I know he really meant that. For the first time I made a move and wanted to please him too. Next morning I decided I'm not going to Helsinki; I rather stayed, and we got up in afternoon, had late breakfast, and went for shopping together. That was the beginning of a relationship, and we are still together - seventeen years later.

Strange thing is my feelings for that Japanese boy turned upside down - I actually started to hate him. I saw through him: everyone always liked him, and he knew how to manipulate people, but behind their backs he could say the most hateful things. There had long been rumours about me at the school, and we had made fun of it and put on a show. But since I actually came out, telling everyone openly that I had a boyfriend, his behaviour started to irritate me, and especially the fact he denied there ever was anything between us, which was simply untrue. He was ashamed of it. I just couldn't stand his presence anymore - I kicked him out of my room - yet he didn't seem to get a hint, and pushed himself in front when I was taking a photo, for example, and when someone asked if we were still friends, he said "of course!" I didn't say anything. In my book, we were not. A flame that was lit fast, also burnt out fast, and love turned to its opposite. Instead, with my partner we have slowly grown together, as I have told in older post - "Grown to Love". 

In our relationship sex has never been an issue; it's not what our commitment is about. Sex and love are two separate things. However, Osho brilliantly shows that sex is a kind of form of love too.
First, let me quote from my website: "Christianity adopted three terms related to love from ancient Greece. Agape means love as friendship and sharing. In letters of John, God is also called agape (1 John 4:8). See also: John 15:10. To love in social and moral sense. This form of love is totally selfless, and it won't change whether it is returned or not. It is love that serves others. Eros is passion of love, love that wants for oneself; it's based on strong romantic feelings towards another person. Philia is love as affection, love between friends; To love as a friend, to be fond of someone. It's based on friendship between two people, who share a mutual 'give-and-take' relationship."
Osho gives new meanings for these classical definitions:

"To me, these three words are very significant: sex, love, and prayer. Sex is reconciliation of your body with other bodies. Let me repeat: Sex is a reconciliation between your body and other bodies. That's why it is so satisfying, that's why it brings such a thrill to you, such excitement, such relaxation, such calm. But it is the lowest reconciliation. If you don't know any higher, then it's okay. But you are living in your house, not knowing that your house has many other rooms. You are living only in a dark cell, and you think this is all - and there are many beautiful rooms in your house. But you will remain a beggar, because you remain only in the body. The body is only your porch, the porch of the palace.
But sex brings joy because it is a reconciliation between two material bodies. Two bodies vibrate to one tune. There is song, a physical song. The poetry arises between the two energies of the bodies; they dance together hand in hand, they embrace each other, they are lost into each other. For a few moments there is ecstasy, then it disappears because bodies cannot melt into each other - they are too solid for that.
Then the second thing is love. Love is reconciliation between two minds, two psychological energies. Love is higher, deeper, greater. If you can love a person, by and by, you will see sex disappearing between you. Western people become very much afraid of that phenomenon. Every day some couple or other comes to me and they say 'What is happening to us? We have become more loving, but why is sex disappearing?' Because they have been taught that sex and love are synonymous. They are not. And they have been taught if you love the person more, then you will be more sexually involved with the person. Just the reverse is the true case. If you love the person more, sex will start disappearing, because you are getting a higher reconciliation. Who bothers for the lower? This is more satisfying, brings greater contentment, more lasting joy. 
And the third state of love energy is prayer. That is reconciliation between one's soul and the soul of existence. That is the highest reconciliation, there is none beyond. So when that happens, the so-called love also starts disappearing - just as when love happens sex starts disappearing. And I am not condemning sex - there is nothing wrong in it - it is perfectly beautiful, healthy in its own place; but when the higher energy comes, the lower starts disappearing. There is no need for it; its work is finished. It's like a child which has become grown-up in the mother's womb - nine months old - now he is ready to get out of the womb. Those nine months... beautiful. He will be grateful to his mother for his whole life; he cannot repay the debt. But now he is ready to get out of it. That womb cannot contain it any more; the child has begun to become bigger than the womb. Exactly like that it happens. If you really go deep into sex, a moment comes when your love is more than the sex can contain. Then you start overflowing, you start moving higher, and soon you are out of sex. One day again it happens. When love is too much, you start overflowing into prayer; and then love disappears." (I say unto you, Vol.1; Talks on the sayings of Jesus)

No one else has affirmed my own experience of sex and love as Osho in quote above. My idea of love may be very unromantic. It's not so much about feelings. Feelings come and go. Nothing firm can be built on that - only the castle on the cloud that the first storm will blow off. Of three qualities of man's soul - thinking, feeling, and willing - feeling is the most insecure and flickering. Love is more about decision: "This is the man I want to share my life with."

I have tried and found that celibacy - which of course excludes masturbation too - is actually quite easy to me, in fact, easier than being sexually active; I feel serene (Note: I'm not saying, this is how I live!*). Sex often tends to mess things up between people, and mess up their minds too. Even physically it is messy and exhausting. Masturbation with your own fantasies is often more fun, and it's over as soon as it is done. I'm on a gray area of asexuality. I can count men I have slept with, with fingers of my two hands. And I haven't have anal intercourse with anyone else but my partner - we were both first ones for one another.
At the same time I believe in all kinds of relationships - including open ones - as well as casual sex. As long as it happens between consenting adults. The act itself is not a sin; sin is in your heart, if you are abusing and harming another person.

*Update: Someone who read this writing, understood that I indeed do celibate today: NO, I DON'T! That's what I tryed to emphasize here.)

I have a straight male friend, over 40's, who is still a virgin, and would like to find a wife - who must be virgin too! In fact, once he told me that women who are not virgin anymore (yet available), are "used" and "tainted". I can never forget that. I couldn't comment. I was absolutely shocked to hear him say that; it was such a chauvinist thing to say.

I'm not telling this to him, but I'm always thinking, "Never gonna happen!" If only he was Christian believer in traditional sense, that could be within frames of possibility, but he's too much into esoterism, believing in reincarnation, among other things. So it's very unlikely he could have a chaste Christian virgin wife, who would approve of his beliefs. Besides, those people tend to rush to marry young, because they want to have sex which is forbidden outside of marriage. I think his only option is to go to Philippines or Thailand to search for a wife. It is different culture there. Maybe it wouldn't be love at first, but how is that different from the way it used to be, and how it still is in many cultures?

Fact is, in The Bible virginity was required from women, because they were possession of men that was traded, and the "goods" had to be intact. It concerned only women; you can't even tell if man is a virgin. There is nothing sacred about biblical marriage; it wasn't necessarily between two people only, not based on love, and partners were not equal. Even early Christianity taught that marriage was only  "necessary evil". Marriage was for long time a legal contract for aristocracy for planning for their possessions. Today half of marriages end with divorce anyway.

There is civil partnership for same-sex couples in Finland, and now there are demands for marriage equality too (which is already reality in other Nordic countries, and only a matter of time in Finland too!*). I support that, but I didn't always, because I made a same mistake many people still do - I confused two different things: legal contract and religious ceremony. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. For me it's all about protection for partners' rights in case something should happen to one of them - which of course is already provided in current system - but also about equal rights, including adoption; in fact, I don't care if it is called "marriage" or not, as long as there are exactly same legal rights! (However, wouldn't that be a little strange to call it something else then?)

Of course I admit that if you believe in Divine, you would certainly want to include that to your relationship as well, but such a blessing is not valid only if it is offered by some "official" institution through its professionals. In many countries civil union always takes place first - also in heterosexual marriage - and only afterwards it may be blessed by Church. You can do it yourself! Then it is personal.

*Update: Marriage equality was indeed approved, and the law will change in 2017. 

See also:

Monogamous Ever After? 10 Smart Things Gay Male Couples Can Teach Other Couples about Sexual Non-Monogamy. 

Peter Tatchell: Porn Can Be Good For You.

CHANGES

In earlier post named DISILLUSIONED - ENGLIGHTENED, I have told what happened in The Christian Community, congregation of Tampere, Finland, I'm a member of. All that changed permanently the way I see my denomination, but some kind of change was already on its way anyway. Now, one year later, I try to tell what exactly has changed.

The Christian Community claims to be the "movement for religious renewal." I think that is completely ungrounded. Maybe it was something new when it was founded in 1922 - for example, women priests were ordained right from the beginning - but not for decades anymore! Recently initiated blessing of the same-sex couples is a big step for the Christian Community, but it certainly is not a forerunner; first such blessings took place in 1960's and 70's. Within its own borders it is quite strict, and I cant't help thinking that in the name of renewal, too much of tradition of 2000 years was also thrown out - that famous "baby with a bathwater."  In many ways The Christian Community has got stuck and is looking backwards: "Rudolf Steiner this and Rudolf Steiner that..." Osho's criticism on Rudolf Steiner seems very valid to me. I'm tired of fanaticism of his followers; it's like he's next to God and his every word is divine revelation for them. Yet in the beginning his name was a guarantee there must be something deeper in The Christian Community (and for other people it is obviously a warning sign). It is true there is no dogma in The Christian Community; however, there are many beliefs held so self-evident, it is hard to feel at home if you question them, and it is a blind spot for most. I myself used to repeat the phrase I was told, that Rudolf Steiner brought forth the new and modern Sacraments from the Spiritual World, until I realized how arrogant statement that is; it is actually saying, "our Sacraments are the best - directly from the Spiritual World!" I say Rudolf Steiner as human being made them up based on his own understanding. Everything else is pointless mystification. It won't make the matter itself any less. I know too much to be able to think that The Christian Community is unique and highest on earth. In every place I've been, I have found same strong spirit of "US"; in some degree it is justified - you can be proud of your own, but it should not blind you from seeing what is good elsewhere.
And I have to say with experience of over ten years, that The Christian Community at least in Finland is some quarrelsome group; especially priests have repeatedly had difficulties in co-operation with each other. I don't have anything to compare to; I don't know how it is in other spiritual movements, so I'm not saying this is typically a problem with The Christian Community. I'm rather inclined to assume it is a problem with people in communities. In essence, The Christian Community is not a cult, but there are people involved who have a cult mentality. And that applies to all denominations. It is simply one church among others - not better or worse.
I have neither reason to recommend The Christian Community, or not to; Jesus' advice -  “Come, and you will see" (John 1:39) says it all. If one can accept the contents of the Sacraments and feel to receive something, that is all you need. About The Act of Consecration of Man, I have always liked the fact it doesn't contain any forced outward participation of the congregation. As Alfred Heidenreich writes: "The co-operation is one of inward activity. The congregation is not merely addressed, nor are meditations simply read to them. Neither are there external forms of movement or expressions, such as kneeling down and standing up in frequent succession. The co-operation is one of pure spiritual activity. For this (at any rate within the sphere of western civilisation) the sitting posture in most adequate. In this respect the Act of Consecration of Man is reminiscent of the quiet intensity of a good Quaker Meeting..." Sometimes it's very soothing that I don't need to do anything, not even to pray, but instead I am prayed for; I can just be still and have rest for my soul.
After months I didn't attend to Church Service last year, I crossed the final psychological barrier, and started to have Communion by myself at home. This is the Future! Right now I'm tired of reading, pondering, and discussing on spirituality; I keep up my daily prayers and meditation, and just live my life. That's all I need to do to connect to Other Reality beyond this material existence.

I came to the community like a child, willingly embracing everything I was given. Now I have grown up. I admit such a child-like attitude may carry you a long way, but I no longer find that an ideal state of affairs. I guess I'm just too much of an individual thinker to be able to adapt to any community. They all, without exception, have their own collective understanding, even if they had no dogma.
Term "christian" is also too narrow for me. I don't want to buy the whole box with that label attached to it. There's too much useless junk in it. In a way I could say, "once gnostic, always gnostic". I have been involved with one modern gnostic movement, and totally dissociated myself from it, but what I understand by "gnosticism" today, is something else: it is movement of free, individual spirit; and what I mean by "movement", is simply that spirit must always keep moving.
I have read a lot all my life - I'm 44 now - about different religions, spiritual movements, historical critical Bible study, mythology, church history, atheistic criticism of religion, philosophy of religion, esoterism... you name it. All this - of course linked with life-experience - provides you with wider perspective and sense of proportion; you will less likely expect too much from anything, but rather see it as it really is. You will see people can be shitty everywhere, no matter how nobel ideals they may have, and there is no "Truth" with capital "T" among men on this earth. The more you know, the less you suppose - and especially the less you think you know, and finally the highest knowledge is to know that you know nothing. Knowledge becomes the firm foundation upon which you may jump to reach for the Heights.
That which is "safe" is not always best for man; it is stopping, while progress requires taking risks. The one who walks his own way, must be ready for loneliness. The "lost sheep" of the parable is not in a bad condition; an individual must leave to experience, not follow the flock. "Small gate" and "narrow road" only fit for individual, who goes before; "wide gate" and "broad road" are for the masses, that will follow. I am wandering in the wilderness, crying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Old ideas, old idols, are falling down. They need to die in order for something new to be born. It's painful, but those are birth pains.

If there is "Church of Christ", it is invisible, and its members come from all religions and outside of them. Jesus Christ did not found a church, let alone religion; he gave spiritual power back to people. I don't believe in church, nor profess religion.
Today I want to know Jesus the Son of Man and his message, rather than some mythical godfigure and doctrines made of him. Jesus is an englightened Teacher, Christ is a cosmic principle, an Archetype of Divine Man, but also a living flame of Godhead within each person's soul. Jesus became Christ. Christ is universal - he belongs to all humanity, not for Christians alone. You don't even have to know about Jesus Christ - Christ is an objective fact behind all creation. It doesn't give you any privilege if you cry out his name, or believe this or that doctrine about him. (Older post in this blog, "Jesus Christ: Life and Mission", reveals I used to rely on Rudolf Steiner's Christology; it served me well for a while, helping me to better understand truths of Christianity. But I no longer believe Christ is Divine Being who took over Jesus' bodily form for three years.)
I don't claim any of this is true; it is my point exactly - a man can not possess the TRUTH, that is, to understand God. All theories are tools we use to classify our world to be able to comprehend it. But mere theories they always remain.

My own personal Jesus

My idea of Jesus is an image I have created that best serves my goals. I might worship ancient Egyptian gods just as well, but I was raised in Christian culture, surrounded by those images, so why not use them as I please? People - Christian, or otherwise - do that anyway, whether they admit it or not. After all, it was my great realization that as a child I used to build imaginary worlds in my mind, and with such a great devotion - literally - I prepared to play before I even began. And even though I grew up, this was still the case, now in the name of "religion". The same "Holy Play" is going on. A child still lives partly in Heaven, here and now, exploring the world with all one's senses, and without knowledge of "sin" or "evil". "The Kingdom of Heaven" is a realm of imagination and creativity, and to become like a child is to surrender to the Play in earnest, but not humourlessly.
I believe in Divine, or Godhead, but rather don't want to define it too much; term "God" is biased. What people usually do, they draw borderlines between one another with these definitions, and simultaneously they try to limit Godhead within their narrow mind.
I don't even need the Bible. At best, it is fine collection of aphorisms. At worsed, it is full of shit. I'm ready to abandon the Scripture althogether, when it contradicts my conscience, or it is used as a weapon against me. I don't believe it is the infallible "Word of God". Even the most conservative Christians use it selectively, and even the literal interpretation is just that -  interpretation. I might honestly choose my own canon of "Holy Scripture", if you like. I have already made up my own traditions. It is pathetic to mould your whole life according to thousands of years old writings. So, to those Bible-bashing Christians I could say, "you can shove it up your ass!"

As a middle-aged man, looking back at my life, I can say with wisdom brought by life-experience, that young person should not waste his or her youth with religious daydreaming, but to live, experience, and enjoy, also making mistakes because that is part of life.

MOTHER MARY AND DIVINE FEMININE

“ My soul magnifies the Lord,
  And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
   For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
    For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.
    For He who is mighty has done great things for me,
    And holy is His name.
       And His mercy is on those who fear Him
      From generation to generation.
      He has shown strength with His arm;
      He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
    He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
      And exalted the lowly.
  He has filled the hungry with good things,
      And the rich He has sent away empty.
He has helped His servant Israel,
      In remembrance of His mercy,
   As He spoke to our fathers,
      To Abraham and to his seed forever.”

(Luke 1:46-55 NKJV)

In my spiritual life, I have become very traditional, even "catholic" in broader sense of a word. So it is not so strange I have had to ponder on my relationship with Mary. But actually, it's not correct to say "ponder", since even as I have read a lot, first and foremost I consider myself a Mystic. Mystically speaking, I can put it this way: Mary originally approached to me in prayer, and now she has taken place by her Son in the centre of my devotion. When I first prayed the Rosary, it was very powerful experience. 

However, there is one thing that needs to be understood here: Although it's only natural I see her in traditional figure like artists have portrayed her through the centuries, it is not self-evident if I actually think she is Mary of Nazareth, mother of Jesus. She might as well be an Archetype. I have a same reservations about Jesus himself. But these are things I don't really trouble my head with. Practical relationship, prayer life, is important. 

God the Father is an abstract idea to me - perhaps due to my distant relationship wiht my own father - and that's exactly the meaning of Christ Jesus: Through Him the Father, whom no one has ever seen,  is manifested. Same could be true about Mary and the Holy Spirit, and even more about Mary and Sophia, Divine Wisdom. Who could actually say they understand who or what is Sophia, without using memorised phrases? Not me. But if Mary is, in a way, Sophia incarnated or earthly reflection of her, it becomes easier to comprehend. 

When we take a look at the Old Testament, we may find a concept of Shekinah, a name that in Heprew is feminine. It is used especially in Talmud and Kabbalah to describe feminine characteristics of God's presence, manifestation of her presence on earth. In literature Shekinah is also called the Holy Spirit, which is related to Wisdom of God, often personified as feminine in both the Old and New Testaments. Philo of Alexandria identified Wisdom with a concept of Greek philosophy, Logos, and as such, Christ - Logos - is often identified with Wisdom, but Wisdom is also seen as the bride of Logos. Theophilus of Antioch identified Sophia with the Holy Spirit. Heprew word for "Spirit" is feminine too, Ruach, but it was lost during translation from Heprew to Greek; The Holy Spirit, Pneuma Hagion in Greek, is neutral, and it was turned to masculine when translated to Latin!

Ancient symbol of feminine Divinity, a dove, is related especially to Mary in art, for instance, as Central figure in decent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Holy Family in canonical Christian iconography is also seen as an image of the Trinity: Joseph representing the Father, Jesus representing Christ, and Mary representing the Holy Spirit. Gnostic Gospel of Philip states, "Some said, 'Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?" 

Some say, women priests in protestant Churches derive from the fact, that feminine is reformed out of Churches with Mary. However, Martin Luther said: "[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ...She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures." (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

"Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees...If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother." (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Protestants easily imagine that Catholics think Virgin Mary is divine because of herself, and equal to Christ. But the principal glory of Mary lies in her nothingness, in an exemplary Faith she expressed: “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” (Lk 1:38 NKJV)

At a Wedding in Cana, Mary points at her Son, saying: “Whatever He says to you, do it.”  (John 2:5 NKJV)

And on the Cross Jesus says to her mother, “Woman, behold your son!” , and to John: “Behold your mother!” , thus making a statement that His mother is Our Mother, Mother of the Church. (John 19:26 NKJV)
There is, however, a group within the Catholic Church, that is promoting for the Fifth Marian Dogma: Mary Co-Redemptrix. 

I have already written on Virgin birth [Jesus Christ: Life and Mission]. I only repeat the words of late Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro, who wrote in the 60's: "It's not important how Jesus was born, but the fact that he was born in the first place." Abd-Ru-Shin writes,

"Every conception arising out of pure love and a heartfelt looking upwards to the Creator, in which the sensual instinct is only an adjunct and not the basis, is an immaculate conception in the physical sense. In reality this occurs so seldom that there was every justification for laying special stress upon it."

St. Ambrose said: "Let Mary's soul be in us to glorify the Lord; let her spirit be in us that we may rejoice in God our Saviour."  

And Angelus Silesius, a Mystic and Poet:  "The Virgin I must be and bring God forth from me

Should ever I be granted divine felicity. "   

"'Virgin mind' is the innocent and open mind, untrammeled by knowledge and words, and, as it were, without 'conception' (profane conception), and therefore ready to be filled by the Sacred seed."

As Dictionary tells us, "conception" is

1. the act of conceiving;  the state of being conceived.

2. fertilization; inception of pregnancy.

3.a notion; idea; concept.

Indeed, I think "virginity" in this sense, is related to being like a child, that Jesus says is a requirement for entering the Kingdom of Heaven, which I see as realm of creativity and imagination. Both "virgin" and a "child" were also seen in early Christian writings as androgyne beings, symbols of wholeness. 

I am in contact with the Liberal Catholic Church in Finland, and they see Mary as motherly face of God and she is called the World Mother. According to C.W.Leadbeater, "There are three distinct ideas involved in the ordinary thought of Her:

1. The story of the mother of the disciple Jesus; what She was and what She afterwards became.

2. The sea of virgin matter, the Great Deep, the water over the face of which the Spirit of God moved.

3. The feminine Aspect of the Deity." 

(World Mother as Symbol and Fact) 

To me it is obvious, that the Highest Godhead is above all we can say, and it is neither masculine nor feminine. As St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, even as we worship the God beyond everything as Trinity and Unity, he is not three nor one as we know these numbers. Personally I don't like image of God as Michelangelo portrayed him, as an old bearded man on the cloud. Yet many Christians have made God unto their own image. My God is not white, heterosexual man. However, all opposites in manifested world merge into one Godhead in perfect harmony, and symbolically it's possible to say that God is the Mother as much as the Father. Many mystics have said the same, Juliana of Norwich being one of them. There are even modern versions of the Lord's Prayer taking this into account. 

Lords Prayer, from Aramaic into Old English:

Translation by G.J.R. Ouseley from The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

 

Our Father-Mother Who art above and within: 

Hallowed be Thy Name in twofold Trinity. 

In Wisdom, Love and Equity Thy Kingdom come to all. 

Thy will be done, As in Heaven so in Earth. 

Give us day by day to partake of Thy holy Bread, and the fruit of the living Vine. 

As Thou dost forgive us our trespasses, so may we forgive others who trespass against us. 

Shew upon us Thy goodness, that to others we may shew the same. 

In the hour of temptation, deliver us from evil. 

Amun.

Some Bible verses on God as the Mother:
"When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take care of me." (Ps.27:10)
"Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you." (Isaiah 49:15)
"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you." (Isaiah 66:13)
"The LORD shall go forth like a mighty man; He shall stir up His zeal like a man of war. He shall cry out, yes, shout aloud; He shall prevail against His enemies. I have held My peace a long time,  I have been still and restrained Myself. Now I will cry like a woman in labor, I will pant and gasp at once." (Isaiah 42:13-14)
Jesus said also: "How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings." (Mt.23:37) Some female mystics have called Jesus their mother, and even experienced him nursing them from his side wound.

Jesus, as a mother you gather your people to you:
You are gentle with us as a mother with her children;
Often you weep over our sins and our pride:
tenderly you draw us from hatred and judgment.
You comfort us in sorrow and bind up our wounds:
in sickness you nurse us,
and with pure milk you feed us.
Jesus, by your dying we are born to new life:
by your anguish and labor we come forth in joy.
Despair turns to hope through your sweet goodness:
through your gentleness we find comfort in fear.
Your warmth gives life to the dead:
your touch makes sinners righteous.
Lord Jesus, in your mercy heal us:
in your love and tenderness remake us.
In your compassion bring grace and forgiveness:
for the beauty of heaven may your love prepare us.

Anselm of Canterbury


On Assumption of Mary, C.G.Jung saw this papal declaration addressing “the profoundest problem afflicting the human psyche: an imbalance which favored masculine principles and archetypes over the feminine ones."

"In the declaration that Mary had been physically assumed into heaven, Jung saw the Church as accepting at long last the physical world. But more importantly, in that declaration which affirms that a woman has been bodily assumed into heaven and has taken her seat on the throne of glory, Jung saw the Church as harvesting and celebrating the feminine and gentle element built into creation", writes Fr. Alexis Luzi, OFM.

 I find Apparitions of Mary around the world fascinating. They all are not officially approved by Rome, but the people have affiliated with them anyway. And they are not restricted to Roman Catholic world either. One occured in Coptic Church, Zeitoun, Egypt, in 1968-70. Famous locations are Fatima and Lourdes. Personally I like especially Maria Rosa Mystica in her simple beaty. Nowadays the most famous apparition site must be in Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I enjoy how Jayden Cameron in his Gay Mystic Blog writes about Medjugorje.

There is no doubt in my mind, that position of Mary in Catholicism is continuity of Pre-Christian Goddess-worship, like that of Isis, popular in Roman Empire in the beginning of Common Era. For many Christians this could prove against it, but I see it the other way round, just like so many other things in Christianity stem from Pre-Christian Mystery Cults, and they reflect certain universal spiritual truths. 
They say, the return of the Divine Feminine in contemporary world is wittnessed by many things like expansion of the rights of women, popularity of alternative medicine, recognition of animal rights, development of gay rights, to name a few.
I find the ritual an important way to approach the Divine, and so I have collected for my own use a ritual, that I call "The Sophian Service"; you might call it Christo-pagan.

Hail Mary Sophia,
Daughter of Light,
Who Speaks:
I am the Handmaid of the Lord,
I am the Queen of Peace,
I am the Virgin Soul
I am the Womb of Divine Love,
I am the Voice of Silence,
I am the Vessel for the Wisdom of God,
I am the Bearer of the Memory of God’s Son.
Sophia Blesses us with
The Light of Wisdom,
The Life of Fulfillment,
The Love of Creation.
We unite Ourselves with Sophia,
We seek Communion in her Name,
We offer our Hearts in Devotion to Sophia.

Amen.