Last summer it became clear to me, that I want to include something communal or social in my life. It would surely do good for me. My "safe space" is with my husband: other people have started to feel intimidating. I felt anticipation as I decided this. It is a main thing that it is Buddhist; differences of schools don't matter, I was thinking.
Obviously there are many options in my home town, Tampere - like a branch of Finnish Sangha of Thich Nhat Hahn, which is interesting to me - but then I found meeting of rainbow sangha by buddhist centre of Triratna in Helsinki, especially aimed for LGBTQ-people, in September 2025. It was on Saturday, 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Here was combined LGBTQ-issue and Buddhism... just like in my black gemstone prayer beads ("Juzu") there are two times six beads in rainbow colors of Pride flag [available in Lotus Lion Design webstore]. Naturally, I'm gay as a Buddhist, and my Buddhism includes my sexuality; they don't exclude one another. I have always been fascinated by Gay Buddhist Fellowship in San Francisco (I listen to their podcast). I have bemoaned there is nothing similar in Finland; you can obviously take part virtually in Zoom, but it is not the same thing. I'm not only fascinated by that gay-part, but also because GBF gathers Buddhist practitioners from different schools and doesn't form a school of its own.
My buddhist gemstone prayer beads, "Juzu"
Now this may be the closest thing in Finland. According to its own definition, Triratna is for modern Westerners, and independent of Buddhist schools. Centre in Finland is almost as old as I am (founded in 1973).
Founder of Triratna, Sangharakshita, was also a gay man. And a controversial figure, I know. Man is a sexual being, and fallible: I don't hold it against him, because he's not a "guru" to me. I have always liked his books; it carries more weight (one of them is about the Lotus Sutra, which is the supreme sacred text in Nichiren Buddhism that I practice). He did nothing illegal, even though misusing authority by seducing younger men is obviously unethical.
I don't accept cancel culture. I have always liked music of Marilyn Manson, and Sandman (both graphic novel and Netflix series) by Neil Gaiman. Once I listened to Finnish Buddhist podcast, as the hosts discussed how the teacher of their tradition got caught cheating his wife with prostitutes. I was only amazed at how hard it seemed to be for them to understand!
Case of Sangharakshita was discussed openly at the meeting in Helsinki, and I can't repeat it publicly because of confidentiality of occasion. But it is difficult for me to see what shortcomings of the deceased person have to do with the group gathering today, or how they would invalidate anything good that person has accomplished.
For rational and balanced view, see Robert M. Ellis, Sangharakshita: Time to Depolarize the Discussion. Robert M. Ellis has written a book, The Thought of Sangharakshita: A Critical Assessment (Equinox 2020). I haven't read it yet, but I'm going to. He says, his book is "the first ever attempt to put Sangharakshita's thinking in a balanced critical context." Furthermore, "I was able to attempt this task from a point of view that was sympathetic to some of Sangharakshita's most noble goals in bringing Buddhism and the West together, but also very critical of some of the mistakes he made in trying to fulfil those goals." Ellis talks about his book also in video podcast on YouTube.
Altar of Triratna Buddhist Centre in Helsinki
Anyway, back to the meeting. There were total of nine participants present, including the hosts. Except for them, everyone was new. There had been only one meeting before in spring 2025. We started with guided metta-meditation; it really made me feel present at the moment, and dispelled all wandering and nervous thoughts. We discussed. One topic was ethical precepts of Buddha, as formulated by Sangharakshita in positive form: Loving kindness; generosity; stillness, simplicity, and contentment; truthful communication; clear and radiant mindfulness. I understand they may be easier to adopt this way, "I want to train this quality in me", rather than "don't do this or that."
We had lunch and tea. Ended with meditation. Donation (dana) was desirable, but not mandatory. I was really happy I decided to go, and my foremost feeling was that I could go again. I asked my husband if he wants to go with me, but waking up early in the morning was too much for him, and I found that was absolutely fine: last time I had done anything like this on my own, was in 2022! It only confirms my understanding, that Buddhism is my thing, and it is good! My Christian phase identifies in my mind with a relationship with my deceased partner - it was "our thing".
A day in Helsinki was very full, so I cared to get up early and travel all the way (180 kilometers and 1,5 hours by train from Tampere). And it's not too often, although I missed the next meeting in January 2026, because it wasn't notified early enough beforehand. I would not go to Helsinki like every month or so. It is nice to visit there, but even nicer to get out. Train trip went very smoothly, as I watched Netflix on my phone. It was a short walk to Buddhist Centre from railway station - I was able to find my way back without navigator.
All in all, it was positive experience, and it deepened my own conviction as well. I was inspired to edit silent prayers of my Gongyo, especially taking refuge in the Three Jewels, so that they emphasize interpretation of Nichiren Buddhism, that of Nichiren Shu in particular. I just combined phrases in new order, keeping also Pali verses I have used since partaking of the virtual Refuge Ceremony in Zoom by Nichiren Shu Temple in Seattle USA, in 2020.
Buddham Saranam Gacchami. Honor be to the eternal Shakyamuni Buddha, our original teacher. I strive to manifest my inherent enlightenment.
Dhammam Saranam Gacchami. Honor be to the Sutra of the Lotus Flower of Wonderful Dharma. I actualize Buddha's wisdom, vast as the sea.
Sangham Saranam Gacchami. Honor be to the Great Bodhisattva, Nichiren Shonin, who formed the foundation for our Buddhism. As Bodhisattva of the earth, I show respect for all people as future Buddhas.
I think Sangha - Buddhist community - can be many things at the same time. Rainbow Sangha of Triratna is one thing, a concrete gathering of people. My experience of practice instituted by Nichiren, which connects me to this particular tradition, is another thing, and in its own way it is more powerful, even though I don't belong to any organization or go to any group practicing this tradition.
Sangharakshita has said (this is my translation from Finnish, since I don't have original text):
It is quite enough to choose such a method of spiritual practice, that suits our own needs, for instance, suitable meditation method. We don't need to belong to sectarian organization, which excludes all others. We don't need to be Theravadan, or Zen, or Mahayanist - we can be just Buddhist. Buddhism itself can be interpreted very widely. According to Buddha's own criteria, all that is Buddhism, which supports individual to become enlightened. Among religious teachers Buddha alone seems to understand that religion is actually a development process of an individual. Sectarian organizations lose this out of their sight, and in fact many of them express mainly negative feelings. We can manage much better without their discrimination and intolerance.
My own practice is the center of my spiritual life, and from the beginning I have decided to stay independent. Of course my practice makes me specifically a Nichiren Buddhist, but not exclusively! It is entirely up to me, after all.
I have been to spiritual LGBTQ-group before, but it was mostly composed of Christians, which is not surprising as we live in mostly Christian country. And last time I was there, we talked about LGBTQ-themed films and TV-shows.
However, I think it is good to practice together, in silence, and silent meditation can only unite Buddhists of different schools, as silence can unite people despite of religion. When I was a Christian, I led a spiritual LGBTQ-group for some time, and I tried to initiate a five minutes period of silence for starters, but it didn't get much appreciation. Of course it was wrong to force people to form, which was meaningful only for myself, but I still don't have understanding for those who can not be silent even for a moment.
Another book I may have to read someday, is My Buddha is Pink: Buddhism from a LGBTQI-Perspective by Richard Harrold (Sumeru Books). It is based on author's blog by the same name, still existing. He is practicing Theravada Buddhism, which is notable difference, because as far as I understand, it particularly emphasizes ethics and takes precepts quite literally. Therefore it doesn't speak to me. I have learnt Mahayana's take on precepts is flexible. Of course Nichiren Buddhism is very original in this respect too. Japanese Buddhism in general is another matter entirely. See English Summary of my other blog, about Nichiren Buddhism: I offer some links about five precepts I have found useful. See also my link list of webpages concerning Buddhism and LGBTQ-issue.
According to Finnish journalist Jussi Ahlroth, who has practiced Vajrayana for 20 years, a word Buddhism was introduced in Western world at the beginning of 19th Century; it was a Western way to bundle different traditions, that are related to Buddha and Buddha's teachings. While Christianity is about the truth, Buddhism is about the method. And methods of various Buddhist schools may be seriously conflicted, because instructions and methods how to see things and how to practice Buddhism, may be totally contrary. Ultimately, emptiness and indivisibility are true in Buddhism.
My Christian friend once asked me if I believe Buddha is still present as a spiritual being. That was to me just as irrelevant question as if I believe in god. It tells a lot about him and how far our thoughts are from one another. I'm not looking for Buddha outside of myself. Through his teachings historical Buddha is present as well, and thus "eternal".
However, I found a quote that says it very well as to god:
Buddhism is often regarded as "atheistic", but such a term only makes sense in an overtly theistic context when we know what it is we are supposed to deny. Nor are any other endless western "isms" which surround interpretations of Buddhism any more successful.
This quote is from Michael Barnes, who is a professor of interreligious relations, and a Jesuit. So, coming from a Christian scholar, I think it is right to the point.
I have read that tantric influences are found in many Mahayana-schools of Japanese Buddhism, although there is only one completely tantric school in Japan: Shingon. Nichiren Buddhism was mentioned as one example. There are tantric elements in Nichiren Buddhism, for instance, an idea that enlightenment is possible during one lifetime. And Buddhist Tantra or Vajrayana starts from direct identification with Buddha Nature, which already exists within, instead of slow and gradual development path of ethicalness and morality. Sounds very familiar to me.
I have been thinking... if that what I know about Buddhism, and what I like about it, is Buddhism interpreted by Westerners for Westerners, there's nothing wrong with that! It rises from Buddhism, Buddhism inspires those interpretations too. Then it is living - not some rigid doctrine, that can be applied stiffly in one way only. I am a Westerner, who practices Japanese Buddhism, and that bears a unique characteristic.
In my Finnish blog I often refer to one particular friend of mine, a straight male and Christian. I have known him for 20 years, and he has always been the one I often have a hard time with. Always. Only him and no one else. So, we've had conflicts over the years, nothing has really changed in that respect, but since I left Christianity, it particularly seems to trouble him, and that in turn is a pain in my neck. Things have escalated really bad this time, and it's been a year already! About year ago, he sent me an e-mail, a long list of questions. First, let me just say that as a Christian, he is an esotericist, who believes in reincarnation (just like I was too); Yet, simultaneously, he is morally extremely conservative (as much as I am liberal). Those two things sometimes seem to be in conflict, and it's not just my opinion: I can see it in his personality, and how it's affecting him. He has actually lost relationships among more traditional Christians in the past, because of his personal beliefs. (And I'm not saying there aren't esoteric movements, which are very conservative: I once belonged to one myself. But usually they are more open, accepting, and free, than many mainstream Christian denominations.)
Have you replaced one religion with another?
When I came to Christianity, I actually consciously replaced one religion (Gnosticism) with another (my previous post, New Revelations, touches that briefly). Over 10 years later, I renounced Christianity, and when my partner suddenly died, I had no religion at all. There was nothing to be replaced. Then I awakened to Buddhism through inner, mystical experience, and as I studied these things I realized, this is how I'm pretty much already thinking.
Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro - bold seeker for truth - wrote in the 1970's: "It is right to accept this attitude: If you show me the truth, that will convince my spirit with greater absoluteness than the truth lightened by Jesus, alright then: My spirit binds me to be loyal to that truth, which bestows the deepest freedom."
I have been wondering why we no longer talk about these things, but when I was pondering his questions, I already began to get tired.
He has repeatedly said that I "used to read and study a lot", but apparently he thinks I don't anymore, as I read and study different things. And he can't even see that himself. He thinks he's only praising me for my past, when at the same time he's playing down (or completely ignoring) my present. I never exclusively studied Christianity, and now that I'm through with that, it seems superficial that it would matter if you believe in certain claims or not. It's only bookish.
To talk about "deep stuff" for the sake of talking, that's superficial too. He once said he no longer knows what I believe in. Why should he? For me, faith is a private matter. It's hard for me to share my deepest thoughts with anyone, because I feel nobody can understand. Nobody has walked the same path as I have. And why talk about doctrinal questions on theoretical level in the first place? Isn't it a question of life?! The most relevant can never be expressed in words, or shared with anyone: You have to experience that by yourself, and experience is individual for everyone. Isn't it a main point to accept one another, no matter what. It's not supposed to be a competition, where the point is to defeat another one with clever arguments.
Understandably, I feel frustrated when asked questions I have already answered thoroughly in my blogs. I express myself best in writing, I'm not a good speaker, so I rather don't discuss these things with anyone. I have also touched the problem I see we always have had: When I try to form my ideas of religion - or "spirituality" - into words, it's like writing a poem. But often I see that for him it is like solving a mathematical problem: completely different approach, as if we spoke two different languages. He has told me how important science and especially mathematics has been to him, even as a seeker for truth on the spiritual path. For me, I think art is closer connection to Spirit. So, our greatest difference is not a content of thought, but the whole process how we come to our conclusions. I have always trusted more in my heart, even though I do highly value persons who read a lot, and especially diversely (and he's not one of them!). But it's not enough. Knowledge you learn from a book is not your own, it's borrowed, until you have experience of it (Gnosis). If you say you know something of spirituality, based on your experience, another person can have equally strong experience, that led them to completely different conclusions. Then it only sounds arrogant to emphasize your own knowledge. Many Christian believers act like that, and it makes repulsive impression. "Truth" is very narrow and small if it is some doctrine or idea included in specific religion.
Seen afterwards, I have walked my way very consistently, step by step: Obviously, I haven't seen at the moment where it was taking me, but every phase was necessary for me, and only for me. There was providence all along. In my perspective and experience, it is odd if a person does not change, and their world view does not seemingly evolve. It is stagnation.
We have never agreed on many things, to think anything else is just illusion. I have learnt long time ago what I can't say to him, and avoided those things. It is also true that we used to have a connection, but it was nothing said, it was shared spiritual practice that united us. Silence speaks louder than words: words can only separate, silence is unifying. It was natural when we had a formal "group" for few years. We gathered together on regular basis, to pray and meditate. It is more difficult when we meet informally. I have tried to make it clear that if you want to discuss deeply, you should also practice/quiet/meditate for counterbalance. Maybe it's just me who has a need for that.
I don't think it's wrong that I'd rather talk about these things with someone like-minded - that is, another Nichiren Buddhist - so that we could compare our experiences, and support one another, maybe even practice together. However, nobody's mind is exactly like mine: As an independent practitioner, I have a freedom of choice. Buddhism, just like Christianity, is not one gray monolith. Nichiren Buddhism is a kind of its own, and even among that there are several distinguished schools. Practice is one unifying factor. I couldn't have converted to Buddhism for example in its Theravada form. Added to that, I have my whole spiritual history behind me (see the introduction page of this blog).
Have you often gone through a crisis, that caused your view to change?
Yes and no. Some crisis may have forced me to change, and it has been a long and painful process, but also sudden inner experience may have changed everything all at once: This is how I became a Buddhist. I was "reborn", so to speak. The most essential thing has never changed, it has only become strengthened and cleared: There is something precious within, "Christ in us", Buddha Nature.
Are you a Buddhist?
Why this question? How is it not clear to him? I try to think he probably didn't mean it that way, but repeatedly I have a feeling as if he's questioning me. That's another reason why I don't like to talk about these things especially with him. Maybe it's because he tries to analyze everything. I base everything on experience, reasoning is secondary.
What do you think about NDE? (Near-Death Experience)
I have told him my opinion sometimes. For whatever reason, NDE is very important for him. Maybe he should live a little first. I think it is real per se, yes, and there are a lot of universal characteristics about it, but also characteristics that arise from person's own mind. Tibetan Book of the Dead speaks about this. I always get suspicious the more specific these stories are; Either the Afterlife is described resembling this world, in materialistic manner, or people are meeting entities from their religious sphere, like Jesus. I think death has a lot in common with dreaming, it's not without reason these two have been parallelled in the old days. But it's not meaningful to focus on Afterlife in this life. And to read others' experiences is not the same as to experience it. Already as a child in the 1980's I read about Raymond Moody's research, and before heart surgery in 2019, I did read a book by Anita Moorjani, and that one I liked: especially because she does not come from Western, Christian culture, but Indian Hindu family, and was raised in Hong Kong. Her experience lacked characteristics I find suspicious.
Do you think Jesus was a historical person?
No serious researcher doubts the historicity of Jesus, neither do I. It doesn't mean more than that. I only want to know Jesus the Man. Like Osho said: "Because you are in the situation of being a Jesus; Christ is just a dream." Christians worship mythical Christ, and don't listen to Jesus. Nevertheless, there is indeed MysticalChrist, and it is within each and every one of us, call it by whatever name; That's the only Christ St. Paul in his epistles is pointing at.
Is the truth a subjective matter to you?
As Wikipedia article explains, "truth" is not as self-explanatory idea as my friend seems to think. It's very vague concept. I have never understood how casually he uses it, apparently presuming that everyone else will understand it the same way he does.
Have you always been personally for some orientation or something else?
I don't understand his question. I have always fully been what I have been. That's why change may be painful, even if they are birth pains.
Is religion or any worldview only a collection of subjective opinions you can change completely?
Views are man-made. Buddhism does not plead for Divine origin. In fact, I find something that resonates with myself in thoughts of Protagoras, a Greek philosopher (490-420 BCE). See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emphasis on Something. Don't take it to mean too much; I haven't profoundly digged into his philosophy.
What does science mean to you? Is your idea of man compatible with modern science? What about the world view?
I have not especially made myself familiar with science. Does the earth rotate the sun? If he wants to know if I am materialist, then no. That's the short answer.
Have you preserved anything from Christianity?
Not consciously. But everything I have ever been, is somehow always with me. You can not get rid of it completely.
What about the things Christianity and Buddhism agree on? I have been glad about the commandments. They are so similar to Christianity. Do you live according to Buddhist commandments/morals/precepts?
This is finally a topic of great importance. There are no commandments in Buddhism. It's not a teaching of morals. Even I misunderstood that when I used to observe Buddhism from outside as Christian, and actually thought I could grasp other faiths as well.
"The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong." (Buddha Net)
It's not even about right or wrong, it's about what is skillful or unskillful. Even to five precepts there are more than meets the eye. My favorite example is sex: Christianity sees a horrible sin, apparently worse than killing, which is quietly approved, and therefore human sexuality needs to be controlled by religious authority. Buddhism does not value marriage or procreation that much, even monogamy is not always so self-evident. I hate moralism in religion, and my friend is a master of that.
I don't see real similarity between Christianity and Buddhism. Approach is very different. Do I live accordingly? Still: They are not commandments. I support Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Shonin wrote:
“The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo, the heart of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, contain the benefit amassed through the countless practices and meritorious deeds of all Buddhas throughout the three existences. Then, how can these five characters not include the benefits obtained by observing all of the Buddhas’ precepts? Once the practitioner embraces this perfectly endowed wonderful precept, he cannot break it, even if he should try. It is therefore called the precept of the diamond chalice”
What kind of idea of man do you have? Do you have a spiritual idea of man?
Idea of man? Spiritual idea of man? I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what he means by that. Perhaps different aspects of man according to Anthroposophy, because that's what he has read up on. (I used to think like that too.) Spirit and matter are not opposite to each other, apart from each other.
What do you think about God?
I rather don't use that name burdened with such strong mental images. There is this excellent video (6 min) - Is there God or not? What did Buddha say?
Perhaps it won't give a kind of direct answer one wants to hear, but perhaps it will make it clear what sort of question one is really asking...
Next quote is from the novel, The Gardens of Light, by Lebanese author, Amin Maalouf. It's about Prophet Mani, founder of Manichaeism (highly recommendable!). Since I only have read it in Finnish translation, I had to re-translate a quote myself (original text is French):
People think they worship Godhead, even though they only have seen images of it, whether made of wood, gold, alabaster, or presented in painting, or words, or ideas. The one who refuses to see God in images presented to them, may be closer to His true image than others...
When someone says they love God above all, they are actually saying they love their own concept of "god". I don't think you can even form an idea of the Ultimate Reality, and put it into words. If you say, "God exists", there is this idea and there are words; it's not "truth". You are only scrabbling blind. Not everything you put together is useless, though, like teachings of Buddha; Some of it may be quite applicable while living in this material world as bodily being, but it shouldn't be mistaken as end in itself. The Ultimate Reality is beyond human understanding.
This list of questions seemed more like a test than discussion, and personally I didn't find them relevant. They reminded me of Buddha's parable when he was asked metaphysical questions of the nature of Cosmos...
It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
This year (2023) my friend offered to send me his writing about his "Theology". I refused. For once, I was honest and straightforward about my feelings, and it was received favorably.
But then he asked me if I have locked in what is true. HE asked me! I could ask him that very question, but I haven't, because I realize how arrogant it sounds like! He might as well continue that he knows what is true. If he remembered what kind of spiritual way I have walked, he should know that I am the very opposite of that!
If anything, I can thank him for substance he has provided me to perfect my thoughts about these matters, brighter and clearer. While it's true that I identify as Nichiren Buddhist, approve of its basic teachings, and follow its tradition in my practice, I do have my own philosophy, formed by itself through life. Sometimes it's said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. I think that is one-sided view, probably favored by secular Westerners. I think it depends very much on practitioner, and their School. Buddhism is also a religion. My approach is clearly more religious one than philosophical, and Nichiren Buddhism is perhaps closer to religion than some other Schools, as I see it. Whereas my philosophy seamlessly encloses a religion I practice, it's not emptied by it. My spirituality consists of manifold aspects, since man is manifold creature.
All the time we pass each other with our words. Repeatedly I have tried to bring up what I think is the most relevant, first suggesting subtly, and later emphasizing, and yet I feel it is ignored, and instead he's clinging to details. Is there already an insurmountable abyss of understanding between us? We are both equally hopeless in this discussion, which is not discussion at all, but arguing. It starts to repeat itself, and leads to nowhere. I don't think he does it on purpose, but he offends me time and again. It doesn't require too many words. I'm aware of my own tendency of malice, and I don't know if I can always avoid it (or if I even want to).
This is why I don't want to belong to any organization, or go to some group meetings. I just walk my own way, wishing to treasure my own spiritual life in peace. Is it too much to ask? My way is not his way, he doesn't need to understand. That's how I should have answered in the first place. Everything else was unnecessary. Too many words. Unfortunately, I also happen to love words. But often less is more. It's obvious that he's not actually interested to know my truth: he's only looking for affirmation for his own assumptions. Therefore, it's useless to expect that I should be interested: The rest of my life is too short to be wasted on things that mean nothing to me. I've already seen Christianity.
I don't think he even understands how tired of this I am. I feel he's interfering with my privacy, and he's extremely biased: his list of questions gave it off. Last year I avoided him for months, and he probably didn't notice. He would hardly notice very soon if I just ceased communication entirely. I don't know why I bother so much, and don't just let it go its natural course. Nothing's permanent anyway. It must be the weight of 20 years of acquaintance.
But all this because of religion? I guess it is important for him, but is it worth it? If only Creed had united us in the past, then it wouldn't matter, for it is superficial, but I don't think that's all. And it's about 10 years already since I left Christianity. Why so suddenly it's such a big problem?
I expressed my frustration in harsh words. Far too long I have kept it to myself. Maybe it was hasty, I'm not sure, but I'm actually relieved now that it's all out in the open. The rest is up to his response, or lack thereof. We will see. I'm done for now. I only pray for the best result for both of us, and I don't really know what that is... My most urgent thought, as weird as it may sound, was: Will there be one person less at my funeral. Almost like his absence wouldn't leave a hole in my life, and I'm not sure it would... we have met so randomly in recent years anyway.
I know I'm not a friend for him. He doesn't need enemies when he's got a "friend" like me. I don't respect his beliefs and values, and he often seems to bring forth the worst in me... I wonder if I see too much of myself in him (and don't like what I see)? I would never confide in him (but who would I confide in, though, unless a professional), and I don't even want to hear about his hardships, because they are always the same, year after year, and I can't say what I think because he wouldn't receive it well. Yes, he was there when I really needed, when my partner died; he was the one who gave me his time, more than anyone else: That was true friendship, and I doubt if I was able to do the same. However, some good memories are not enough to carry on, so why even try? Is it because it's happened before; I have lost many people I once considered friends, and even by choice. It's been almost too easy to move forward, and leave people behind. But maybe I have been wrong to assume that if I lose connection with myself, I lose connection with other people, and therefore I should go inward. Maybe it is the other way round: I lose connection with other people (and more comprehensively, with Life itself!) if I withdraw too much, instead of reaching out towards others.
When we had our group meetings (2009-2012) every other week for couple of hours at the local congregation, other people took part randomly, mostly it was just the two of us, but it worked just fine, and that's what I miss most - deeper connection we had, most likely owing to shared spiritual practice, regardless of doctrines and thoughts (even though I also considered myself a Christian at that time). I was lucky to have a friend, who got involved in my whims with same earnestness, because it was also clear that not many people understood what I wanted to accomplish.
We started our meetings with tea and free discussion for an hour, another hour was for spiritual practice. We tried various methods. I don't think it matters how you practice, it's the main point that you do. Today I would choose a method which is not tied to one religion. There can be meaningful spirituality and sense of community, without reading the Scriptures and praying to God, among people from various backgrounds, and still there can be symbols and rituals that bring them together. I have watched live streams of worship services of Unitarian Universalist Unity Temple, and I like it a lot. It's not in conflict with Buddhism, there is room for that as well. (In Finland we have association too, but they have dropped "universalism" out of their name, and are just "Unitarians" now; also, based on their website, they seem to be solely attached to Jewish-Christian tradition, and that doesn't appeal to me at all!)
Is it past, then? In those days we had a white rose as a symbol - one was actually always there in our meetings, in a bowl of water - today I would bring that together (at least on mental level) with a white lotus: Simply because I love symbols; They enliven abstract ideas, and here we have both continuance and evolution. We could meet simply at the coffee shop, and practice tea meditation awhile; we also tried that in our group. It's quite informal, and allows you to pause in silence while enjoying your beverage. There's nothing awkward about silence, it is natural. (Google "Tea meditation", and you will find many inspiring instructions; apply them as you will.) We would absolutely not discuss spiritual theories or speculations whatsoever: Just one human meeting another human. Spirituality can be very narrow and restrictive role sometimes. Why would you rather talk about it, than make a genuine spiritual connection?
Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis on which the world earth revolves – slowly, evenly, without rushing toward the future. Live the actual moment. Only this moment is life. ~ Thich Nhat Hanh
Could we just agree to disagree. We are not interested in same things, so that's not a foundation to build on. This is a paradox: Connection and sharing is possible, also and specially without words. That's what I want to believe in. We should not communicate through e-mail anymore. Internet kind of splits your personality: who you are online, is not who you are in person. If something can not be said face to face, it shouldn't be said at all. The most refreshing meetings between us have been those, when we have just chatted this and that. I have an image in my head, of Jesus and Buddha drinking tea together. I imagine they would have got along just fine.
That title most certainly caught your attention! The most popular posts in this blog are about sex, what else. So, let's write about sex. I republish this post after some more editing, or censuring; I wasn't ready for all the details I included in my first version. Still I must warn you, there is going to be explicit language and graphic content! This is not for prudes! This is an honest account - so honest it may make you embarrassed. I am a private person, but on the other hand I want to shake those images other people may have about me; they are most likely one-sided.
I have always wanted to emphasize that I'm not a saint, nor willing or trying to be one. I can't stand those people with their halos too tight around their heads! It is because of Christianity, that we tend to make a sharp distinction between sexuality and spirituality. I also fell into that trap as I began my Spiritual journey in my 20's, but in my case it was Theosophy, with those old classical books of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, which told that one must be purified to walk the Spiritual Path. That's how I got it, and of course it caused a great turmoil within my soul. Even more so, once I joined the Gnostic Mystery School, Lectorium Rosicrucianum, where the whole point was to rise above this world.
For long time sex and spirit were two separate threads to me, before they were harmoniously woven into the fabric of life - or were they, I don't know; at least they are no longer in conflict with each other.
Just like spirituality is part of humanity in one way or another, so is sexuality, and obvious and essential part. Furthermore, love is love and sex is sex: they may go together or they don't. There is no rule.
I may have attained something in terms of spirituality, but sexuality is still mostly a mystery to me waiting to be solved.
Man shall differentiate himself both from spirituality and sexuality. He shall call spirituality mother, and set her between Heaven and earth. He shall call sexuality Phallos, and set him between himself and earth. For the Mother and the Phallos are superhuman daimons that reveal the world of the Gods. They affect us more than the Gods since they are closely akin to our essence. If you do not differentiate yourselves from sexuality and from spirituality, and do not regard them as an essence both above and beyond you, you are delivered over to them as qualities of the Pleroma. Spirituality and sexuality are not your qualities, not things you possess and encompass. Rather, they possess and encompass you, since they are powerful daimons, manifestations of the Gods, and hence reach beyond you, existing in themselves. No man has a spirituality unto himself or a sexuality unto himself. Instead, he stands under the law of spirituality and of sexuality. Therefore no one escapes these daimons. You shall look upon them as daimons, and as a common task and danger, a common burden that life has laid upon you. Thus life, too, if for you a common task and danger, as are the Gods, and first and foremost terrible Abraxas.
"Carl Jung, whom many believe was the greatest psychologist of the 20th century, thought that the lipido - something psychologists attributed solely to the sexual drive - was, in truth, the life force or urge to life itself. Mystics understand this urge to life itself as the urge to Universal Life, or God. As taught in schools of Tantric Yoga, this urge - at its highest level of human expression - can become a means to union with God or mystical enlightenment."
When I used to be Christian, I came to experience a connection between sexuality and spirituality, and not in a sense of "sin", but that of ecstasy and passion! Christian mystics had similar experiences. And think about the Song of Songs!
Sangharakshita, a Buddhist teacher, sometimes accused of sexual misbehavior (plain fact that he had sexual relationships seems to be "misbehavior" for some), wrote - and I have to translate this passage from Finnish, the best I can, since I'm unable to find it online:
Man refuses to experience the sensations of the body, especially sensations related to sexuality. This refusal is often associated with a wrong kind of upbringing as a child. For example, I can see people who have been raised to the thought or such a vague feeling that the body is somehow shameful, or at least not as noble, as highly revered as the mind. In the same way some people have been instilled with such an idea, that sexual feelings are sinful. All these kinds of thoughts and feelings stem from Christianity. Even though we have certainly in many ways outgrown Christianity, or at least outgrown dogma of Christianity and control of the Church, these attitudes are very widely spread, and still cause a lot of damage. We can count as one of Wilhelm Reich's great merits that he has studied all this area very thoroughly, and he has shown quite clearly how preventing child's pleasant physical sensations may lead to a grown man denounce all one's life force in a crippling way.
One of the five precepts of Buddhism is to abstain from "sexual misconduct". But Buddha's ethics is not about commands to be observed blindly. It must be interpreted in individual freedom. There is no fixed category for right and wrong; it depends on the situation and circumstances at hand. It's all about consenting adults, who agree on things and are happy about the way they are. Of course there is nothing wrong about sexual expression in its variety, unless it hurts someone.
Weird thing about sex is, that it is such a small aspect of humanity, and yet so dominant from time to time. When you are "horny", voice of reason is shut down, and you follow a basic instinct. In a Buddhist sense, there is no sin, but of course there is attachment along with a desire.
Naturally, cultural norms may vary in Buddhist countries as well, but that's another story, and not to be confused with the religion. It should be noted, however, that there is no consensus among Buddhists over these matters, and that is precisely because the five precepts are nothing like ten commandments! It is so apparent that whenever Christians talk about morals, they always refer to sexuality above all, and seem to be quite obsessed with an issue!
The longest I've been celibate, was three months after my former partner died, and obviously that means no masturbation either! It was not the first time, and my experience is that it soon starts to run smoothly on its own. Once your mind is no longer constantly obsessed with sexual images, you feel so serene. Since I was not planning to stay that way for the rest of my life, and as I was already in love with someone new, while there was no need to force myself to celibate, I had to force myself to end it. It was so easy, almost natural, even if one must argue that celibacy in fact is NOT natural. Sex drive is natural. There was a point in my life when I thought I was on a gray area of asexuality, but today I can say I'm in fact a very sexual person - much more sexual than my partner. It may be a cause of frustration sometimes.
Because of my history and my personality, I had my first sexual encounters only at the age of 26. First, there was this Japanese boy, Masaki, whom I had a crush on, and he seemed to respond to my feelings. We didn't have "normal" sex, but BDSM, and I was the submissive party. It was very, very pleasureful; he only needed to hint if we went to "play", and it was like electricity going through my body. However, it requires, to me at least, such a special chemistry, that I have never wanted to go there with anyone else. That relationship burnt out just as fast as it was lit; my feelings turned to hate, and I left without goodbyes. He didn't seem to get a hint, and I heard him denying there ever was anything between us. Everybody worshiped him, but I got so close I started to see through him: he was very two-faced person - charming face to face, and saying the meanest things behind your back. I suspect our relationship was a little unbalanced anyway.
Under his influence, however, I also started to go to gay night club. If anything, I must thank him for the courage to finally come to terms with my sexual orientation and taking first steps to come out. First I felt such a freedom in that atmosphere. It didn't take long until I got tired. Unfortunately, I was and I have always been completely hopeless with the art of flirtation. I don't even notice when it happens, and I can't do it myself. Only few men had guts to make a direct move on me. That's when I learnt I was good looking; I was bullied at School and my self-esteem was crushed for many years; I thought nobody could like me.
Then I met my partner-to-be. The whole impulse for "hunting" men came from Masaki, who was constantly looking for girls (no, he was not gay - and unlike he liked to think, I came to conclusion he was not bi either!), and at that point I really wanted someone to push him aside from my life. It was not love at first sight, and I was torn within, because of my own inner contradictions. It was long and painful process. I had mixed and obscure motives. Maybe I grew to love my partner gradually, as I always used to say - or was it just an excuse to stay anyway - but even though he was cute, he was not exactly my type (neither was I his). At that time I really would have needed an active manly top man who knows what he's doing. He was top alright, but that's all. We did lose our virginity to one another, but I don't remember anything specific. I do remember better fooling around with some random dudes.
Nevertheless, we ended up being together for nearly 19 years, til the day he died, and our sex life was never active. For the last years it was already dead... just like my love for him, I'm afraid. In the end I think I never was the one he thought I was, or maybe I just changed. It was not the love story of the century, even if we both wanted to believe that.
In my 30's I had a kind of crisis and I cheated on him four times with two different guys within a month. The first guy was only 19 and very hot, but I couldn't fuck him; maybe it was a pressure of situation, or maybe it was a condom - I have never used one before or after (I have fucked two men so far - both of them several times during many years; I knew them and trusted them. I'm sorry, but I do prefer barebacking anytime!). The other one... well, it was getting too serious, so I decided I didn't want that.
I kept it a secret for two years, which was not hard for me to do, until my partner cheated on me one night, and he couldn't keep it to himself; I didn't want him to think he was worse than me. I wanted to hear all the details, and it only aroused me. We were able to talk about it and it strengthened our relationship then.
Years later we were talking about threesome, and one night he brought a cute Thai boy home. I like Asian boys, but I was not really excited about it at the time, because it was just too much of a surprise, and suddenly my partner seemed to lose his interest, leaving me with a boy. I blew him, only because he wanted to - not that I was very turned on. My problem exactly: to please others, no matter what I want. Then my partner got jealous: he started to shout and smash the doors, the boy left, and yet it was him who started it in the first place.
And then there was my partner's old friend... let's call him Jerry - not a Finnish name obviously. We were introduced at the same year I met my partner, and interaction between us was just awkward; if we were left alone in a room, we remained quiet.
However, when the two of them were drunk, Jerry told my partner he would like to lick me all over, and when I heard that, I got so aroused that since then it was my primary fantasy to be with him! He was very masculine, but he was also lying, cheating, stealing, picking a quarrel. Not a trustworthy person at all! Yet somehow I think that was a part of his attractiveness. He was a bad boy.
Years and years went by. Once we were all three drinking and playing "truth or dare", I dared him to drop his pants and show himself all around. He did the same to me. My partner even said to me privately, that he might allow me to fuck him, but not vice versa.
Then there was a time when I went to sauna with him (and in Finland we usually do it completely naked, you know), and my partner even encouraged him. He was just happy to see us getting along. While sitting there I said to him, "Looks good"; such a short comment, and yet so meaningful.
One time my partner even asked him to taste my dick in front of him, and after short hesitation, he did. Just a taste.
Once I was very drunk, and pulled his dick out and sucked it briefly, while two other gay men were watching and my partner was in a toilet.
Finally, we had a big apartment in the center of the city, and we took him as our subtenant as he was homeless. I don't remember exactly how, but at some point I willingly and knowingly started to seduce him, and one time my partner was out, he invited me to his room. We were sitting on the couch side by side, and started kissing (he was a good kisser!). We ended up in 69.
I would have liked to do it again, but he rejected me. Perhaps it was his guilty conscience. And since he was also a difficult person, always causing trouble and raising arguments with my partner, it was hard for me to deal with him and I came around. For my partner he was a guaranteed drinking companion, both of them being alcoholics, given that my partner would pay. They really deserved one another.
After many years from our "incident", he was no longer living with us, when I started to chat with him online. One time he was with my partner at our balcony, using his phone, while I was inside with my computer. He even invited me to sauna with him, but cancelled that with obvious excuse.
Soon after that Jerry told me he was afraid he was going to be the next one. He refused to come to the funeral, using harsh words, and other people were more offended on my behalf than I was; I understood a kind of anger was his way of dealing with sorrow he couldn't handle in any other way.
I moved to my own apartment with private sauna, and soon started to look for company online. Jerry offered to join me for sauna, and I even made sure he understood I wanted sex! But then all the sudden I fell in love. After I moved again (temporarily) to same town with my new boyfriend, one nigh Jerry called me - he had never done that before. He was drunk, obviously, and said he will love me forever! I was stunned, and could only mumble that I had always had feelings for him too. "Feelings" of lust, that is. Jerry was never actually even a friend to me, he was an object of desire. Even when he grew fatter and became "uglier" (he looked much older than me, and he was few years younger), I still wanted him. I must have been the last man who wanted him - too bad he didn't appreciate that fact enough. When my late partner grew fatter, I liked his appearance less and less, and I told him I always liked his personality anyway. There was nothing likable about Jerry's personality in the first place.
We moved back to my old home town, and one night Jerry invited me to his place, and I drove as fast as I could before he would change his mind. Almost as soon as I entered his home, he grabbed me and we started kissing and caressing each other, and took off our clothes. I sucked him, and then he fucked me, I was moaning; he was only the second man ever to do that. That was on December 2017. It was very satisfying to me, but as always, he didn't want to do it again. I told my partner about it, and he was fine with it; Jerry even visited us soon afterwards.
In 2019, few months after I had a heart surgery, he told on Facebook that he had had a heart attack. I didn't believe him. He had a history of lying about his health, seeking for attention. Once he told he had a cancer, and I made him to apologize that to me, before he could visit us again. In the beginning of 2020 he seemed to vanish from Facebook, and didn't answer my message. I began to suspect he might be dead. A mutual friend finally called civil registry, and it became official that he had passed away in January. Nobody knew that, so nobody has been to his funeral, which in a way is just fair if you think about his attitude when my late partner died.
I have not shed a tear for him. In fact, speculations about his possible death were a cause of joking and laughter between me and our mutual friend (no disrespect), before it was confirmed. If you want to be mourned after you're gone, you must live in a manner that you will be missed. It's a custom to say only nice things about the deceased, but I really don't know what to say about him. The dead won't suddenly turn to angels.
I'm surrounded by tragic destinies and lives ending too early. I almost feel guilt for my own life, but the world is not rotating around me. Each of us has a story of our own, even if they momentarily pass by one another. In this story there are two other stories included, but perspective is all mine. In its own weird way it is an obituary, even though someone might say it disparages the deceased. But doesn't it actually tell about me? It's not about their lives, but about my relationship to them. Now five years after my partner's death, I see our relationship from a better perspective, but it's no use to dig up dirt: what's done is done, and what's gone is gone - nothing can change it anymore. I love my present partner probably more than I ever loved my late partner - this time it was love before the first sight - and we are genuinely happy together.
What's the moral of the story, you might ask. Well, there isn't one. I'm not ashamed of myself. I started this by stating that I'm not a saint, neither I'm a good person or a bad person: I am the whole human being. Vices and virtues always coexist, and neither are good or bad in themselves. I refuse to restrict myself to certain role expected by others. I want to better myself, and my relation to other people in particular, but being a monk is not required!
I can count all the men with whom I've had any kind of sex during my life, even once, with the fingers of my two hands. So I could conclude that my "naughtiness scale" is extremely low. Not by my choice, though. In a way I wish I had been more "slutty" in my youth, but maybe I've been protected from (more) bad choices and harmful experiences. So, basically it is bold to tell you all this, and yet I have to admit it's not much. Now that I am down to earth spiritually, next I should expect to be liberated bodily.
It is my problem that I tend to think with my brain, not only with my dick. So there has to be a kind of mutual understanding, that we are on the same page, so to speak. As an introvert, I would find it very exhausting to meet always someone new, a complete stranger. I need to feel safe. That's why the idea of friends with benefits/fuck buddy is more appealing to me than casual sex with random guys.
I like many kinds of men, from young in their 20's to my age, thin and chubby, smooth and hairy, Caucasian, Asian, Black, bottom or versatile (like myself). Physical "perfection" is not my thing. I don't think there is anything personal about athletic model types - they could be made of plastic.
Neither is a big dick necessary to me - who wants to meet a dick? Once you have seen one dick pic, you have seen them all. Pleasant face is more important, and I like to see the pictures of full body, especially butt. Oral sex is just a foreplay to me, I enjoy a good fuck, giving or receiving, not to forget kissing and cuddling, not just humping all the way. I also like to rim, and I don't expect that done to me.
