The most important book I read last year, was definitely a biography of Jiddu Krishnamurti by Mary Lutyens, freshly published in Finnish in 2024. It is said to be the only official biography. The writer knew Krishnamurti personally over 70 years.
I have been interested in Krishnamurti for a long time, even though I still have read up on his works very little. It is admirable how he disclaimed the role that was envisioned for him, and began to teach his own truth. [Here you can find the text of the talk he gave on August 3, 1929, when he dissolved The Order of the Star that he was head of. Years and years later he maintained that the core of his teaching is included in the sentence, "Truth is a pathless land".]
Minor references in this book to theosophical clairvoyant and liberal catholic bishop, C.W. Leadbeater, who supposedly found Krishnamurti, strengthen my judgement that he was NOT a highly developed man: he was full of himself and wanted to make himself important. The path of initiation as he saw it, was mere fantasy. He was disappointed and thought Krishnamurti had "failed". Instead, Annie Besant, president of the Theosophical Society and his foster mother, "was the one person who never doubted that Krishnaji [Krishnamurti's nickname] was the world teacher. She had warned everyone that when the World Teacher manifests, he may say things completely contrary to what they expect."* Reputedly she later said in private, that maybe he was greater than we imagined: not expected world teacher, but the truth itself walking quietly among us.
Personally, I have always enjoyed ceremonies of the Liberal Catholic Church, but I have recognized their imperfection: in an attempt to renew the Christian Church in 1916, they were too hasty, and renewal was left halfway. They still lean too much on the old tradition. The Christian Community did it much better a few years later, in 1922. I'm still a member of the latter one, yet an ex-christian.
Even in this book, a question is left unanswered if Maitreya actually was behind Krishnamurti. It seems that he himself was equally puzzled. He did say, "I have never denied the Masters, but Leadbeater and Arundale [also a bishop in LCC, and the president of the Theosophical Society after passing of Annie Besant in 1933, leading it until 1945] brought what was sublime to the ridiculous, and I denied the ridiculous."*
All his life he underwent something that he called "process", which caused him great pains. But a feelings of bliss and sacredness were there too.
Osho, a controversial modern guru, who had some interesting ideas, but whom I can't possibly consider enlightened (if you have seen Netflix documentary series, Wild Wild Country, you know what I mean), valued Krishnamurti, and said he was on the mountain top and his listeners were down in the valley. He also said, Krishnamurti didn't give answers, he was the answer. That is an impression you might get while listening to recordings of his speeches. [see the YouTube Channel of Krishnamurti Foundation.] Sometimes he seems a little frustrated: "You have listened to me for decades, and you haven't changed! Change now, not tomorrow." At some point he states, he has been like he is since childhood, "a freak of nature". Perhaps he was not able to see how hard that, which was natural to him, was for other people? He has been criticized by some for not offering any method.
One has to find the answer for oneself; one has to wipe the slate clean and begin again, knowing that no one outside is going to help you - no authority, no belief, no religious sanctions, no moral standards - nothing. Nor will the past, with its scriptures, saviours, gurus, and all that. These are no longer important.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, talk to young people 2, Brandeis University, 21 October 1968
Krishnamurti met Dalai Lama and they had philosophical conversation in spirit of mutual respect. Dalai Lama said that Krishnamurti is one of the greatest thinkers of our Era. He also had discussions with physicist David Bohm. I have cited him as I told of my interest in quantum physics: there is a logical continuation from quantum physics to Krishnamurti - it's all about the nature of reality, and our status in it. This is an example how ideas come to me at the right time, in right order, to support my spiritual growth. I think even my experience at Lectorium Rosicrucianum, with Gnosticism, was valuable [For both, quantum physics and gnosticism, see my previous post, This I know in my Heart: My Experience of Gnosis]: there is some truth about their teachings, that is, we are influenced, we are lived, and we must change: become neutral, inwardly silent. But you don't need to belong to a group - rather I see it as an individual task, even lonely task - neither you need forced restrictions, nor all that unnecessary esoteric hogwash. Just listen to Krishnamurti; he is the purest embodiment of this mental state.
To stand alone is to be uncorrupted, innocent, free of all tradition, of dogma, of opinion, of what another says, and so on. Such a mind does not seek, because there is nothing to seek; being free, such a mind is completely still, without a want, without movement.
Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ojai 2nd public talk, 7th August 1955
Krishnamurti was asked what he thought about Buddha, and he answered he didn't: thought does not reach the realm of understanding. Allegedly he also said that nobody listened to Buddha, and that's why we have Buddhism. Naturally, same can be said of Jesus and Christianity. When a Buddhist scholar listed things Krishnamurti seemed to agree on with Buddha, Krishnamurti first asked why such a comparison. He did say, however, that Buddha had always appealed to him.
Just before reading the book, I was worried about my mental health: I felt I went so deep on the edge of desperation, minding the state of humanity today. It has been a long process. Most of all I have been bothered by the fact, that I am just like everyone else! I have strong opinions, I can easily take a side and get agitated by those I disagree with. Yet, people really don't have opinions of their own - we absorb everything from outside. I even questioned if I want to be part of the human race. I remember reading that according to early Christian Desert Fathers, to truly love mankind and pray for all one needs to take distance. That's why they retreated from the world. Similarly, I find it necessary to keep mental distance today: I no longer follow the News that much - they are often speculating about the worst case scenarios and causing pointless fear and worry. Likewise, it has become essential for me not to read internet forums or comments; then you will definitely lose hope about the future of mankind (and I don't mean no one should comment on my posts: I write about such a marginal stuff, it won't interest many, so apparently I don't attract attention of bullies either.)
Humanity has gone through devaluation, now that anyone can vomit the content of their mind for the eyes of others. Three poisons defined in Buddhism - attachment or greed, aversion or hatred, and ignorance - are just as relevant today as ever. [A good description of them is given here.]
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
I have used a phrase, "I'm only human", as an excuse not to try. Now, thanks to Krishnamurti, it has become clear to me: Yes, it all starts with me, I must change! It won't start with states or companies, but with individuals. Even peace is attained only by striving for peace in one's own life. That is a message nobody likes to hear, because it demands so much from you - your whole life! It is not enough to protest, vote, recycle, go vegan... it is all external. The real change occurs within. Also, it is not about definitions of "good" and "evil", and following commands or precepts; that is only shifting the focus within old confines. It is about observing oneself, and becoming aware; that much I'm able to understand.
The man who wants to improve himself can never be aware, because improvement implies condemnation and the achievement of a result. Whereas in awareness there is observation without condemnation, without denial or acceptance.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Since the beginning of my Buddhist practice in 2018, I have been praying in silent prayers of my daily Gongyo (which I have modeled after examples given by other independent practitioners online, usually ex-SGI members), "for the great aspiration of Buddha; peace for land generated by means of the purification of mind." It is gratifying to see clear evolution in your spiritual life: difficult matters ripen in your mind slowly but surely, and produce fruits of insight at some point. Sometimes they can be "self-evident", something you have read and known in theory, until they come to life to you in personal realization when you are ready.
To transform the world, we must begin with ourselves; and what is important in beginning with ourselves is the intention. The intention must be to understand ourselves and not to leave it to others to transform themselves or to bring about a modified change through revolution, either of the left or of the right. It is important to understand that this is our responsibility, yours and mine...
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Also only now I better understand Bodhisattva vows, that are part of my practice, as they are part of Nichiren Shu Gongyo. Like, "sentient beings are innumerable: I vow to save them all." What - I, all!? That is exactly one man's responsibility as part of the whole, just like you take part in all negativity along with the rest of mankind. I once heard that at least in the US at some schools of Buddhism, they have replaced that with a phrase, "I am with them": it is uninspiring, and undermines the whole statement. I may understand, that Westerners might easily be reminded of Christianity and Jesus, who alone saves all. "The way of the Buddha is unexcelled: I vow to attain the Path Sublime." [See "How to be a Bodhisattva" by Nichiren Shu UK.]
Sentient beings obviously include not only humans. I don't believe in Christian idea of man as a "crown of creation", who was given dominion over other species. We are one species among others. Even intellect hasn't been only beneficial for us, we have misused it a lot. I think animals who act according to their nature, are more purely what they are and closer to their original purpose. Man is the greatest reason for their suffering as well, therefore their liberation must begin by man.
As a Christian I used to say again and again to myself: neighborly love begins with yourself. Indeed. It is a paradox, that when the spiritual path takes you deeper and deeper within, it may seem self-centered. But when a man acknowledges one's own responsibility for the state of whole human race, their perception will enlarge inevitably. You are part of the problem, unless you're part of the solution. You can either go with a flow - highway to hell with the majority of mankind - or you can go to counter-current with the few who can see.
If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
I have known about Krishnamurti from 1990's, along with Theosophy. It seems that I already have everything I need: I just really need to realize it. Moments of anxiety and desperation always seem to precede the greatest realizations. There is nothing new to me, but sometimes I may lose inner resolution out of my sight, while worrying what is wrong with human race around me, human race I'm part of. I seem to be very disposed to influences, which often shows in negative ways, but in this case it is manifested through openness and receptivity as I listen to Krishnamurti. I feel I receive something, even if understanding was not reached right away.
When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love. Love is the missing factor; there is a lack of affection, of warmth in relationship; and because we lack that love, that tenderness, that generosity, that mercy in relationship, we escape into mass action which produces further confusion, further misery. We fill our hearts with blueprints for world reform and do not look to that one resolving factor which is love.
Jiddu Krishnamurti
When I told my old friend about my interest in quantum physics, I was disappointed in his weak reaction. This time at least as enthusiastic about Krishnamurti as I was in quantum physics, I just noted with understanding that nothing in him resonated with this.
My own small insights along the way have pointed at the same direction, built me up bit by bit, and I feel that what Jiddu Krishnamurti is talking about, is the next logical step on spiritual evolution, that goes beyond all religions. It requires questioning all knowledge assumed until now. Even I'm still too attached to my Buddhism. I'm like a vessel filled with finest wines, but I'd rather go to fountain of fresh water springing up in me.
How can you think about something which you do not know? You may have read the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, or other books in which various erudite scholars have skillfully described what God is, asserting this and contradicting that; but as long as you do not know the process of your own thinking, what you think about God may be stupid and petty, and generally it is.
Below a documentary for DVD of Lucasfilm television series, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992 - 1996). I used to watch it, and the only episode I can remember, was the one where young Indy met Krishnamurti; Leadbeater and Besant were portrayed as well. I was excited about Theosophy at that time, so it was very intriguing to me.
Jiddu Krishnamurti: The Reluctant Messiah [26:48]:
This post came into being because I'm writing a series of posts, based on my old diaries from 1990's, for my Finnish blog, and I just reached the year 1995 when I turned 25 and joined the Gnostic Mystery School, Lectorium Rosicrucianum. This was a phase in my life I have only briefly mentioned before, yet it had enormous effect on me. That was the first time I ever have addressed this topic so straightforward in Finnish as well.
[Addition 2/23/2025: I have read experiences of other ex-pupils, see Reddit: An Overview of Lectorium Rosicrucianum. Interestingly, LR apparently tolerates watching television nowadays. There are even hints that homosexuality would be no longer seen just as bad, or something that can be "cured" anyway. Also, I did not know that the founder's son, Henk Leene, resigned with some pupils, and founded his own esoteric movement in 1970's (I read this on Wikipedia: see German page and use Google Translate) - Sivas Esoteric Community, which seemingly evolved to more open and free direction, emphasizing individuality instead of strong group mentality, gradually distancing itself from rosicrucianism, changing its terminology, and abandoning prohibitions and rules of life - and they did not claim they are the one and only true spiritual school! See "Henk and Mia Leene Library" (use Google Translate). There are also free downloadable documents available: Unmasking a sect: Dossier on the Lectorium Rosicrucianum.
I was lucky to get out so early: as hard as it was, how much harder it would have been in longer run. I'm more and more convinced that in LR nobody actually knows what they are doing - they just exist in their own bubble. Also, I'm convinced of validity of my way more than ever!]
I first met Lectorium Rosicrucianum in the fall of 1994 at New Age fair in Helsinki, Finland. That is their target group, people who are interested in New Age and Esoterism etc., and already somewhat familiar with that imagery and vocabulary, even though LR makes its own concoction out of these ingredients.
I ordered their introduction course, and right after that, instruction course of 12 letters. I also corresponded with their contact person in Finland, asking questions. I had sleepless nights while pondering, and felt like I was starting to understand and accept. New Age geek became a fanatical gnostic. Somehow it was a relief to give up many beliefs and customs I had cherished. It was earthmoving, shaking foundations of my life so far. I likened it to personal reformation: unimportant things were dropped off, the essential things grew brighter. I felt like I was looking at such heights, that I had never experienced anything so powerful and all-encompassing, not before nor after - to yearn for God like a drowning person needs air. Today it's very dim and distant. Now it's easy to see what it really was, as the glamour has faded long time ago. Of course I didn't think I was fanatical, or just blind believer: Nobody can see that themselves when it is current. My diary during that period is quite a rant: I was one of the few chosen ones who knew the truth and followed it.
Center of Lectorium Rosicrucianum in Sweden (picture by me)
In January 1995 I traveled with other Finnish members to Sweden, our neighboring country, where LR has a center, for weekend conference, and I was installed as a preparatory pupil (I'm not sure if that is a name they use of this stage in English). After one year, I performed the sacrament of covenant and signed the act of covenant, thus becoming a trial pupil (again, this is only my translation), followed by affirmative installation at the temple in Stockholm, Sweden. After that, two years later, I was invited to become acknowledging pupil [note: "confessing" might be more appropriate], who will acknowledge the requirements of being a pupil by change of their way of life, their neutrality and gentleness, but then I was in situation that made me feel like I'm not able to do this, so I denied and remained just as outer member, until permanently resigning by the end of 1999. Those three stages of being a pupil are "outer School"; there is obviously more - inner School. All degrees are allegedly spiritual - each pupil will proceed in their own pace, only the goal is one and same. Everyone will demonstrate their progress like an open book, you can't hide or pretend. Each degree requires more powerful connection between a pupil and the gnostic force field, so that pupil will transform in process, that will culminate in full liberation, leaving this world for good and association with the Universal Brotherhood.
Temple of Lectorium Rosicrucianum (picture found from internet)
In inexperience and naivety of my youth, I was very vulnerable, anything but mature, therefore easily influenced, that's how it began, and that also became an obstacle to me on this road, when I finally started to see life.
Anyone who has ever belonged to movement demanding basically your whole life and complete devotion, whether it is the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or whatever, will probably understand what I went through, even if they don't understand a word of this doctrine. I think even today this doctrine may sound strange for those who are familiar with esoterism as well, just like it was new to me back then. I rarely bump into Lectorium Rosicrucianum nowadays, unless I intentionally look for it, even though it has apparently grown a bit after those early days in Finland too (in Finland it was only officially founded in 1995: I was the fourth pupil here at that time). It stands apart from other movements, because it considers itself special and unique, and its doctrine certainly is not appealing to crowds, because it's so exclusive and demanding.
My drawing from ´90s
LR makes a sharp distinction between this world - which includes the other side inhabited by the dead as well: we are trapped within a cycle of life and death - and the divine world we can reach only through the process of total transformation, "transfiguration", rebirth. This world is not the original creation of God, but only temporary emergency order after the fall. It is very gnostic distinction, but I don't know any other modern gnostic movement highlighting it that much.
It was taught that there is so called "vacuum of Shamballa", a kind of force field, forming the other side of the School after death, where pupils advanced enough were taken in, and it was apart from "the reflection sphere", where ordinary people went after they died, protecting pupils from its deceitful forces. Ultimately, it is "the ark" that will carry them to the divine world when the time is full.
Of course there was also apocalyptic vision: The year 2001 was mentioned in literature [allegedly based on "chronology" of the great pyramid of Giza! This is mentioned in "unmasking a sect"-dossier], but I was told it didn't mean the end of the world. There was allegedly time for the first phase of School's work up to that, but it was tentative, and as I was told, they were behind in plan: there were not enough pupils of 5. and 6. degrees, who were needed to carry the rest. The School was said to gather as large "harvest" as possible: then it was supposed to transform - the inner School would disappear from the world, the ark will take off. School will function, but those who later become pupils, can no longer move forward on the path because of changing radiation conditions. They can be the first ones who react positively in the next manifestation day. Since I was no longer a pupil, and not in contact with anyone for long time, I have no idea how it's going with that. But isn't it familiar and convenient concept: "we were not ready, we had to postpone the time." Who would want to join, if they could not make progress? And yet there is this feeling of urgency: "Hurry up, as long as there is time". "Manifestation day" refers to Manvantara in Hindu cosmology, very long cyclic period of time: according to LR, each manifestation day will end with destruction, earth is purified before mankind makes it uninhabitable, and everything will begin fresh and new, and it's easier to react positively to liberating gnostic impulse. I admit it's quite easy to fall for apocalyptic thinking while looking around this world today.
Because I have always been interested in religions and spiritual movements, I also know a lot about the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, even though I don't believe a word, and I remember one time I was with a group of people and I told them some of those teachings, and we laughed. Afterwards I was ashamed. It is easy to laugh outside. I should know better. Peer support might do good: at least you get perspective for your own experiences. Even if the worldview and terminology may have been different, with everything I have heard or read, I have realized years later that my experience might not fundamentally differ from anyone's experience, who has "found God", so to speak.
Jan van Rijckenborgh
At very early point it became clear to me that on this road acting on homosexual orientation was seen as an obstacle, and it didn't even surprise me; somehow it was intellectually acceptable to me, but not in my heart. Something that was not a problem to me, was brought in front of me as if it were a problem, from outside. I was told LR reacts to homosexuality "negatively, but not judgmentally". What does that even mean? You start to judge yourself anyway. The founder of LR, Jan van Rijckenborgh, wrote about subject very bluntly, calling homosexuality sickness, sin and abnormality, just like conservative Christians! Biblical arguments had nothing to do with it; reasons were "gnostic". It was said to affect all bodies of human, probably disturbing correct polarization: man was supposed to have positively polarized material body, negatively polarized etheric body, positively polarized desire body, and negatively polarized thinking ability (not a full-grown "body" yet); woman had vice versa. So co-operation of these two could not be realized and that would nullify possibility to walk this path. The key was a gradual neutralization, so that sexuality would move away from physical needs, they were dissolved. Ultimately, it was supposed to be the same for heterosexuals too. Reason for homosexuality, as I was told, was the past live as a monk or nun. I don't know if this makes any sense... or actually, I know it does not: obviously, I don't believe any of it now. Anyway, "the cure" was firstly not to live by this "twisted inclination", and secondly, to orient oneself towards the path with full orientation, and walk it determinedly.
First I confronted great turmoil within my soul as I saw the movie "Maurice" (yes, I made an exception and watched it on TV) and read a book by E.M. Forster it is based on. I became aware of my loneliness. However, I felt the literature of the Spiritual School (as LR is also called) was like a ray of light through stormy clouds.
Maurice (1987), re-release trailer
I thought I was prepared to live alone, but suddenly I found myself in short but fervent event of life, accompanied by experiments with alcohol (I had never drunk before) and few unsatisfying one-night stands (I was inexperienced). Then I met my soon-to-be long-term partner.
Conflict tore me in two directions. It was long and painful process. I even tried to deny all spirituality awhile and focus completely on mundane, but it didn't carry me far.
It took me over 10 years before I could rationally admit even to myself, that I was in a narrow-minded cult (I'm fully aware how controversial term this is: I'm only using it for lack of a better word), and it was not just me who "failed to adjust". Everything was presented with a smile, explaining, that "everyone will personally see that this is true". Bollocks! From the very beginning, it is brainwashing: when the world is pictured dark and hopeless, and this is the only way to salvation, you better run - to opposite direction!
My drawing from ´90s
We were told there are seven liberating spiritual schools operating in the world, but interestingly, LR was the only one working in public. Leaders of the School had supposedly met members of Chinese Taoist School. How convenient is that: "See, we are not the only one; you just will never hear about others, they work in secret."
Pupil has to accept certain rules of life, like vegetarianism, avoiding tobacco and alcohol, and leather or fur clothing, and watching television. I didn't feel like I was giving up anything important, I already observed many of those rules. Gradually they will become aware of many other things they should avoid, like rock music. I learnt to appreciate classical music too, so I guess that was a good thing. However, already back then I found it a bit peculiar that LR in their publications uncritically cited claims that a band name KISS is an acronym for "Knights in Satan's Service", which I had heard when the waves of Satanic panic from the US reached the Nordic shores, and I thought it was stupid. Yet LR also criticized common Christianity.
Perhaps surprisingly, meditation is warned against, and also many forms of alternative medicine, including all energy healing, like reiki, which I was practicing (and still am today, after pausing for those few years). Also, all churches and their rituals were warned against, and of course all other esoteric movements were wrong, or incomplete. Like, theosophy and anthroposophy were seen as preparatory stages before timely outpouring of the universal doctrine. This is very typical, I think: "they preceded us, but we are better: we have something more."
According to their doctrine, people have two souls: active nature soul born of temporal world, and hidden divine soul. Like attracts like, and person who hasn't turned and purified one's being, meditates with their own consciousness and can only attract arbitrariness of energies of this nature order. How uplifting and beautiful it may be, it is very deceitful. Old methods were in order in specific time and place, but conditions have changed. I had a little crisis of faith, as their teachings were so radically divergent from the mainstream spirituality.
My drawing from ´90s
As for the alternative medicine, I was told it's essential that it doesn't operate on occultism; or tie you even tighter with mundane cycle, furthering your petrification; or somehow apply the modern science of psychology. Even aromatherapy or color therapy were out of the question. Homeopathy was OK. Interestingly, I heard a story that C.G. Jung was originally supposed to establish a mystery school of this era, but he chose another path. It is well known fact that he was interested in gnosticism for awhile, and I still find his thoughts on matter valid. (See also: The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead.)
I loved the Gnostics in spite of everything, because they recognized the necessity of some further raisonnement, entirely absent in the Christian cosmos. - Carl Jung
Certainly I did adopt some thoughts I have kept until this day. Above all, the idea that "The Great White Brotherhood", or whatever you want to call it, if you believe in such a thing (and I don't take a stand on that), never operates personally, never appeals to your ego. There is no room for "messengers", or "master-this-and-that". I discuss this in my post, Western Esoterism vs. Buddhism. Also, general distrust for channeling has remained; this is something H.P. Blavatsky already spoke of (see "the danger and deception of channeling").
LR brought back to my life the fear of death I already once had left behind me, and I had to work on that for many years. It took me over ten years to get rid of its influence, even after I resigned. Still sometimes a thought has crossed my mind: "What if it is true?" Even though many details seem completely irrational. The more detailed doctrine, the more suspicious it is: "We have explanation for everything." A proof how deeply harmful teachings like this really are. Even after 30 years I felt anxiety reading my memoirs. I have never really dealt with that period, I only wanted to suppress all my feelings about it, replacing it by actively committing to a new church. I didn't resign because I stopped believing - not for a long time - but because I had met my late partner... and not because I had fallen in love with him, as one might expect. I was kind of taken by the circumstances, without will of my own, and surrendered to my fate. Yet it is wise to discern controlling movement from relationship, which may have not started with best and pure motives on my part (I briefly touch this in my post, New Revelations); I got rid of the former because of the latter, and it was a good thing, just took long time to understand it.
My personal history may have a connection to a fact that all rules of life based on spiritual view are a big NO to me. In Nichiren Buddhism there are schools that don't find the five precepts of Buddha relevant. Only the practice (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo: see my other blog) is relevant. As an independent practitioner I gladly embrace this view, choosing the teachings that speak to me. This is one more reason why Nichiren Buddhism. It doesn't mean I go around doing bad things, you just don't have to tell me what not to do, and how to live my life. I don't miss absolute truths, or otherworldly rewards: my way of practicing spirituality keeps me down to earth; I don't need complicated explanations, only the simple and practical method that surpasses thinking and is free from feelings.
"Don't be a dick!" This is a summary of my ethics, highlighted by the fact that I first saw this kind of poster in gay porn flick. It reminds me of the words by John Shore I have often quoted (and this is by memory): "Christians, whenever you say, 'I only speak the truth in love', what others hear is: 'I am a dick.' So, stop saying that... unless you are. In that case, continue, I guess."
For me it is easier to accept the reiki principles, because they don't go to details of everyday life. I remind myself of them everyday. There are different versions, but I found one that appeals to me especially. According to reiki teacher Frans Stiene, Mikao Usui - the founder of reiki system - may have given various students slightly different versions to support their spiritual advancement and understanding, and this version he is said to have taught his buddhist students, as he was buddhist himself (I have to partially translate from Stiene's book published in Finnish, couldn't find this exact version on his webpage):
Do not anger, for anger is an illusion Do not worry, for fear is a distraction Be true to your way and your true self Show compassion to yourself and others For this is the foundation of the Buddha nature
Getting angry and worrying are exactly two features that mostly bother me about myself: I let other people effect me so that I get angry, or I worry about things that haven't happened and I only imagine. Both shake my balance: I don't stay calm within myself, or present in the moment. And obviously compassion is a challenge I have been struggling with. It could be that I don't even love myself as much as I used to think I do. But needless to say: being true to my way and my true self is what my life is all about!
Basically, people can do whatever they want with their lives, unless it is illegal, and it hardly takes anything meaningful away from you, if you don't watch television or drink alcohol or eat meat... One can only question that it is required: it is another matter if it is your choice from the very beginning. And if you can obey the rules you have chosen to obey, that doesn't make you a better person. It is completely different thing when we step into personal and intimate area of sexuality, and you are told you are wrong kind of man or woman, and therefore not allowed to love. And when you believe it and start to restrain yourself and your life - your life force... then we cross such a tremendous human line, that it has to be strictly condemned!
It is good to understand, that just like Christianity has been divided to various sects and denominations, with very large differences on views and practices, and some of them even think they represent the one and only true Christianity, same goes with gnosticism too. As I used to be Christian myself, I sometimes cited a phrase, "There are as many ways to be Christian, as there are Christians." Likewise, Victor White, an English Dominican Priest who corresponded and collaborated with C.G. Jung, said: "There were almost as many gnoses as there were people who called themselves gnostics or who have been called gnostics by later historians."
Despite of my experience in one modern gnostic movement, I did not lose my interest in gnosticism in general. After strictness of Lectorium Rosicrucianum, I was just pleased with more liberal interpretation of it. Some of these ideas include: Gnostics emphasized primality of immediate experience. Gnostic can approve in faith what others have said only temporarily, until they have found their own path. Gnosticism was a movement of spirit without absolute boundaries. True gnosis is mystical knowledge and experience one can reach through inner intuitive ways, which transcends outer shape of reality.
LR used a word "Gnosis" in varying nuances, as I understood it: it might refer to God, Static Kingdom of God, Radiation Force, Christ Hierarchy... all these names were used as equivalent. They don't really indicate what I understand by Gnosis today: "thinking with a heart".
In Finland we have nowadays one modern gnostic movement of our own, founded in Finland in 2009 and working in Finland only: The Gnostic Society of Finland. There is only brief English introduction:
The purpose of the Society is
to nurture the gnostic spiritual heritage,
to spread the knowledge of Gnosticism,
to promote gnostic research and teaching activities,
to create conditions for the practice of gnostic spirituality,
to strengthen the spiritual connection and sense of community among its members,
to strengthen the spiritual connection and sense of community of its members,
to guide its members to inner integrity, love of neighbor and tolerance and
to act as a link for those interested in Gnosticism.
The activities of the Society include
public lectures,
discussion sessions,
reading groups and study groups,
mass services and devotional services,
the Mystery School lectures,
the esoteric Gnostic Rite,
Correspondence School and
self-study materials.
I'm pleased that it seems more like blanket spirituality, not focused on Christian gnosis, like so many modern gnostics. It's about universal message of love, that's how I get it. And they do bless the union of same-sex couples! I would love to take part in their gnostic Mass, but it is held only in Helsinki - not impossible, but requires travelling.
I may have considered myself a Christian already as a member of LR, which has been described as "christo-centric mystery school", but they taught the Gospels would be true whether Jesus lived or not, because they presented the path everyone must walk by themselves. This was not far from teachings of Pekka Ervast (see the link lists of this blog), Finnish theosophist and rosicrucian, who was my spiritual mentor before LR and also after. In his book, The Esoteric School of Jesus, he refers to different theories in regard to Jesus Christ. Then he writes:
We must first ask what the words mean. "Christ" is not a noun nor pronoun, which would be suitable, as such, as a name for a person but an adjective which means "anointed", in Hebrew - Masshiah, Messiah. The Jews held - as did Christians later on - that the Messiah was a certain person, and Jesus denies this conception of "anointed" as a form of person in the first of above mentioned excerpts from the Bible. [Matthew 22:41-46]...
Looking at it from the spiritual point of view, there is only one important thing, and this is that a human being should know that he is the son of God. Because his own "I", his inner soul, his true self is not of the material world but is of God...
All these human Egos, of which every human being has one, are therefore born of God, and when the "I" born of God has become conscious, of its own divine descent, aware of the fact that he is the son of God, then he is stepped into the "anointed" life, then he is "Christ" or "anointed"...
So, when I was exploring The Christian Community, esoteric christian church based on Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy, it was hard for me to get hold of idea that God had become man and walked this earth, idea so fundamental to mainstream Christianity, but also part of Steiner's Christology, often stigmatised heretical [see in this blog, A.P. Shepherd: Spiritual Science and the Christian Churches]: yet it was through that I came to basic Christian views on incarnation, crucifixion as utter deed of redemption, and resurrection. In the beginning it was very difficult, I was suspicious about many things I saw or heard: it was so different. But I kept attending services on regular basis, and came to love my church because I loved Christ who gave himself to me through bread and wine. I was touched by the image of Beloved Disciple, who leans on his master's chest, listening to his heartbeats, and I was able to identify with him. Obviously, that was very emotional attitude. I desperately wanted to believe! The Christian Community was my lifeline that saved me from spiritual death! For me, name of Rudolf Steiner was a guarantee there must be something deeper here, and of course the key question to me was a position on homosexuality: today the Christian Community blesses the union of same-sex couples.
The Christian Community does not consider itself the one and only true church, but I brought this attitude with me and took everything I heard or read for granted, before I started to think for myself. But of course I had to settle first. Over 10 years later, I had become such an independent thinker, I was already beginning to move further away - around that time I came into the reckoning with my past - when it really hit me hard that not all my thoughts were accepted, and I was even attacked [see my post, Disillusioned - Enlightened]. When I finally reached the dead end on that path as well, I was coming closer to my gnostic roots, first as Luciferian, then as Buddhist. ( See previous post, "My visit on the 'Dark Side'") I need to add that today I'm at ease with the Christian Community, still a member officially, not attending much, but I do appreciate them. I just don't believe in Christianity anymore (and hardly in humanity either; it's a constant struggle).
It is interesting that regardless how large and mainstream Nichiren Buddhism is in Japan, it is so original that it is sometimes criticized and looked suspiciously by members of other schools of Buddhism. When I was still christian, I found this webpage called Ways of Christ, and liked the vast variety of information it provides: there are references to numerous sources. Concerning Buddhism, it says: "Among the Buddhist schools of thought, the teachings of Nichiren could appear as a bridge." For full context, read the entire page. Certainly for me it has been a natural progress: I didn't find Nichiren Buddhism, it sort of found me and it was like coming home. As I studied Nichiren Buddhism, I noticed I was already thinking along those lines, and devotional and ceremonial aspect was very much like what I did as Christian on my own... I have kept everything on my long journey I still treasure today.
In my experience, in Lectorium Rosicrucianum members just complied with expectations and rules, only selected information was given about leadership, structure was hierarchical, and leaders, higher ranked pupils, were considered spiritually more advanced supermen! Instead of individual diversity of humanity members were expected to "lose themselves" and form a "group unity": could it sound more cult-like? In the Christian Community there was freedom of thought... and honestly, a lot of conflicts between people, also difficulties in collaboration among priesthood, and even I couldn't avoid that. Yet I think it was just a problem of imperfect people, as we all are, who were given this kind of freedom, a natural side effect and byproduct of such freedom. (But obviously this freedom had its limits as well... and that was narrow-mindedness of some people!)
A friend once got me almost annoyed when we messaged, discussing matters of faith, as he said he has experienced (knows) that God (and Jesus and Christ) exist... until I payed attention to a word "experienced": If you claim to know something like that, it seems arrogant and questions other people's experience that can be just as strong, but led to different conclusions. But if "knowing" is understood as Gnosis, inner personal and intuitive knowledge, it can be - and it has to be - subjective (as many gnoses as there are gnostics): It doesn't make your experience merely imaginative, you only have clothed pure experience with definite thoughtform.
Personally I have discovered how similar atmosphere there seems to be between the Lotus Sutra, that Nichiren Buddhism highly values, and the Gnostic Gospels. Like someone said: Mahayana Sutras picture the magical world full of archetypal figures living beyond historical time and space. Sutras appeal to spiritual imagination. They pursue to expand and work imagination through the methods of visionary drama.
Or as Sangharakshita, British Buddhist teacher, put it (my own translation from Finnish, since I haven't found the original text):
"Generally, presentations of Buddhism in the west emphasize the rational side, or even give the impression that Buddhism is solely rational. We are told about Buddhist thought and philosophy, Buddhist metaphysics, psychology, and logic, and sometimes all that feels very dry and academic. However, another side represented by myths, symbols, and imagination, emotions, and vision, is not any less important, and for many people it is perhaps even more important. This is why we must absorb the writings, appealing to our emotions, like parables, myths, and symbols of Mahayana, included in the White Lotus Sutra."
The Hymn of the Pearl in the Acts of Thomas shares a lot in common with the Parable of the Jewel in the Robe in the Lotus Sutra. The story is different of course, but it is penetrated by the sense of familiarity. The idea is undoubtedly same: There is something more, something precious, within a man, but it is easily forgotten or ignored in the midst of this world.
The scientific study on Gnosticism is interesting enough, without any esoteric theories. See, for example, Gnosticism and "the Gnostics" (pdf) by Ismo Dunderberg, professor at University of Helsinki.
Also, you may think this is not related issue, but I see connection: I highly recommend a book by Finnish physicist (and reiki master!), Johanna Blomqvist: Hyperreality - Beyond the horizon where physics meets consciousness. It was a revelation. I had missed a popular writing on quantum physics, and here I found it! This book came to me in right time: it confirmed conclusions I had come to, in my own ways. It was kind of easy to understand, almost obvious to me. It suits well with eastern ideas, I think. Everything is energy, everything is interconnected. Separation and opposition are virtual or surface. Spirit and matter are not opposites to each other, apart from each other.
Reality is subjective, therefore truth is also subjective. It is not about opinions, but experience. "Opposite of correct statement is false statement, but opposite of correct truth can be another correct truth", as physicist Niels Bohr has said (in my translation). Everyone of us forms our own idea of reality, more or less aware of what this idea is based on. In the end we are alone, each one depending on our own thinking, because we have to choose whose view, whose teaching we trust. It's easy to think our own mind is the right one, because each of us has experience only about the process that led to our own values and view of reality.
Reality is what we think is real. What we think is real, is what we believe in. What we believe in, defines what we think is real. What we think is real, is our reality. - Physicist David Bohm
Towards the Light - Tales of Finnish Occultism and Esotericism
A document focusing on interviews with Finnish Esoteric organisations. Featured are Gnostic Society, Rosy Cross, Esko Jalkanen – Nature’s Powers Trust, Star of Azazel, Theosophical Society and Christosophia Supporters’ Association. The document is divided to four parts with different themes: The Societies, The Teachings, The Human Being and The Future. The document is subtitled in English.
Realized by Antti Kaipainen and Marko Forsten. 41:49 min. June 30 2021.
Obviously, it's not very deep, only the very basics, and as such, nothing new to me. Frankly, I'm confused how come the Theosophical Society is included among these groups. They are international, not particularly Finnish. However, three out of five other organizations are directly involved with Theosophical world view, and they readily admit it; undoubtedly remaining two organizations are influenced by Theosophy as well, simply because it has had such a wide influence on Western Esoterism.
Pekka Ervast
On my link list on the sidebar, you can find Pekka Ervast, a man who is said to have brought Theosophy to Finland in Finnish language, and who later founded the Finnish Rosicrucian Order, Rosy Cross. He was my spiritual mentor for many years. His books were revelation to me, combining head and heart, solving contradictions in Church Dogma. It was through his work that I found the version of Christianity I could approve of.
Obviously, I also know Christosophy, a word Pekka Ervast first used in his books. It's a fact that without Pekka Ervast, Finnish Esoterism would miss a lot. However, I have never understood the point of this movement, started by Ervast's co-worker J.R. Hannula after his death. They seem to emphasize Ervast's role to the extreme, explaining how Buddha expressed Logos as Reason and the Holy Spirit; Jesus expressed Logos as Love and the Son; Pekka Ervast supposedly expressed Logos as Good Will and the Father, and he declared the new religion based on the Sermon on the Mount, which according to Ervast was the most essential teaching of Jesus.
I became familiar with the Star of Azazel on my Luciferian period - see my previous post. They are heavily based on Theosophy too. Since Blavatsky, Theosophy has always reinterpreted the symbolism of Lucifer/Satan, Star of Azazel just makes it their main doctrine.
Esko Jalkanen - Nature's Powers Trust (link to English pdf file) I don't know personally; I have a friend who has received spiritual help from them and was happy about it.
Gnostic Society (unfortunately, there seems to be no English pages) is interesting to me. Among other things, they conduct equal weddings for same-sex couples too. I would like to visit their Gnostic Mass, which is not Christian - a fact that I as non-Christian gladly welcome (since there are also many Gnostic Christian Churches around the world, you know), but they are held only in Helsinki (I live in Tampere, and go to Helsinki less than once a year).
This document missed two particularly Finnish organizations based on Theosophy:
Ihmisyyden Tunnustajat ("Confessors of Humanity"), a commune, where I visited in the 90's and bought my first books by Pekka Ervast. For a while I even dreamed of living there myself, but that was a passing phase and it soon became clear it was not for me. I read the founder (now deceased), who used to be involved in Christosophy until her claimed communications with the Masters of Wisdom were rejected, was considered a reincarnation of Helena Blavatsky, and that really bothered me; I met her, and she didn't impress me much. Yet the fact that this commune is really long-lasting, seems to prove there is something about it that is working. They are very strictly focused on one ideal - maybe it is their strength, but to me it seems too narrow.
Via-Akatemia ("Via Academy"; no English!): They say they teach Rajayoga, or "thought yoga", through their correspondence course, logical positive thinking, through which it is possible to attain inner peace and happiness, and expanding of the consciousness and connection to Higher Self by repeating positive phrases or mantras. I have read old magazines from the 70's, when this organization seemed to be a little controversial; nowadays they have renewed their image (since both of the original founders have passed away) and become quite presentable. One of the founders also said she was a reincarnation of Helena Blavatsky: how many are they? (Globally there have been many more.) Their background was on Theosophical Society, Rosy Cross and Christosophy, and initiative for their work allegedly came from the Adepts of White Brotherhood, of course.
Also worth a mention is a mystical artist, a rosicrucian and contemporary of Pekka Ervast, who didn't start her own movement, even though she supposedly was in contact with the Masters: Aleksandra Ionowa.
Finally, as Lucifer, true to his name, he is the bearer of the spark of light, who descended through the planetary spheres from the highest light down to the matter, seeking to liberate it as a work of salvation. - Carl Jung
I have an old post called "Satan loves you!", which illuminates my thoughts before I avowed myself a Luciferian. In that post I already write about the difference between Satan and Lucifer, but I was yet to own a title of Luciferian.
Already in 2012 I was spiritually confused, and it felt kind of good: it was indicating that I had not stopped on my spiritual journey - I was still going forward. A year after that I found that I can never be sure where the next step will lead me, and it was exciting! A couple of years later I was like on open sea, no land in sight in any direction.
So I had already started to move further away from my esoteric Christian denomination, I embraced many practices on my own, like Rosary and personal devotion before the home altar, that were not part of my faith tradition. I was interested in revolutionary ideas of Krishnamurti and Gurdjieff, as much as I was familiar with them (not so much really), and original Theosophical doctrines of H.P. Blavatsky, in stead of later watered down versions by others. Also, out of curiosity I was already somehow intrigued by darker things, like Satanism. I was flirting with the darkness.
Then at the beginning of the year 2013 a real crisis occurred, as I have reported in my post, "Disillusioned - Enlightened", that really got me alienated from my Church; I felt I was not supported at all, the whole matter was more like hushed up. In a way, my community became exposed less than perfect, like any other religious community, or human community in general; Obviously, that should be no surprising, but to me it was devastating: my ideal was crushed. No wonder I fell to pessimism and cynicism. That was natural outcome of deep disappointment, and of course it was not very healthy, but it had nothing to do with the worldview in itself I soon chose. But I guess it gave me an excuse for anger, which was justified.
The Eucharist on my home altar
I stopped going to Church, and fully embraced an individual approach to religious practice. I started to think I was a priest to myself, and finally even adopted the Eucharist as a central part of my daily devotion, which became more like the Mass in its entirety, with complete form of words and gestures.
I don't remember how it exactly happened, but at some point I got tired of the whole Christianity thing. It was like that road was walked through, nothing more to see there. I wanted to explore the road less traveled.
That was relatively short period in my life, about 2013-2015, and I never addressed the topic in this blog at the time. I did write another blog dedicated to this philosophy, entitled, "Ministry of Infernal Affairs", but it was in Finnish; I only wanted to include that wordplay, which is impossible to translate. Some of my themes were symbolism of Baphomet, and that of sigil of Lucifer, and that of the snake on the cross; Planet Venus; Connection between Wicca, Thelema, and Satanism; Yazidism, and Aleister Crowley's association with it; The Left-Hand Path in Hinduism and Buddhism; H.P. Blavatsky's thoughts on Christ and Lucifer; Prayer in Buddhism; The Eucharist in Thelema; and of course different schools of Luciferianism, and history of Satanism. Obviously, as in many of my blogs, I collected and translated those writings from various sources, they were not my own creation - but reflected ideas I was dealing with.
When my partner suddenly died, I felt my worldview had become too gloomy to help me, and I deleted my new blog. Afterwards I thought it was too hasty, and I have regretted; great work got wasted. After all, there was absolutely nothing evil about it!
Why I want to address the topic now, many years afterwards, is because I think it has a connection to Buddhism, and I still value that symbolism greatly, and see that phase extremely important. These are my personal views only!
I was rebelling against the traditional religiousness and the old-testament image of god. That's why the archetype of all rebels! I didn't consider him a personal being, but rather the representative of the secret godhead in Gnostic sense (as I used to be a Gnostic, and it had a permanent influence on my thought, I guess). Selfishness was never idealized matter to me, even though I could sympathize with philosophical Satanists as well. Yet I made a distinction between Satanism and Luciferianism, as well as between the characters of Satan and Lucifer. There are many interpretations of course, but mainly I saw Satan representing matter, and Lucifer representing spirit. After all, astrologically Satan's planet is Saturn, and Lucifer's planet is Venus, and Venus is both the evening star and the morning star. Let him who has understanding calculate...
I had to break through the cultural conditioning and prejudices instilled in me, and I think it is great richness to see the both sides without fear. It is balance. This must have been the biggest benefit of this byway in my life. It's not in vain that Lucifer means "the bringer of light".
It is interesting psychological phenomenon that for some of us detachment from Christianity and all childhood brainwashing requires turning to the opposite force built within this dualistic doctrine. But if you stop there, paradoxically you still hang on this imagery and concepts based on Christianity (obviously, fundamentally older than Christianity). However, if you understand Lucifer as the principle of evil portrayed by Theology, you don't understand at all! It was a necessary phase to rip me off from the last remains of Christianity.
My Luciferian altar, made by myself
On my Luciferian altar I had a cross with a coiled snake, inspired by the Process Church of the Final Judgment, which I found very fascinating with their peculiar Theology. Later, I also had a sigil of Lucifer underneath. My daily practice was the Rosary of Azazel (not available online in English; the most repeated phrase on ten beads is, "Lucifer-Christos, Soul of God, have mercy on us": doesn't sound so terrifying, does it?) of the Finnish society, Star of Azazel, which tries to combine the right-hand and the left-hand paths, interpreting Satanism through Theosophy. My version of the practice was complemented with the prayer from the Tibetan Book of the Dead (couldn't find it in English), and Pater Noster (yes, in Latin, that "magical language"!). The Eucharist was also included, but justified by practices of Wicca and Thelema. I was reflecting on buying a ritual dagger and adding a pagan ritual, magical circle and pentagram drawn on four directions in the air, but it didn't reach realization.
Perhaps my Luciferianism was about integration of my suppressed and forbidden shadow-side as a part of myself: angel and demon within me were merged, as a whole human being.
My new worldview was short-lived, but I went deep. Even though I abandoned Luciferianism, am I not really more Luciferian today by nature than ever before? Outer destiny helped me through the spiritual revolution. My deep disappointment in religious people in 2013, and the sudden death of my partner in 2015, both were part of this process that took me through the darkness into the Light, purified and enlightened. Even my belief in people was restored. What used to be a spiritual ideal to me, now became a practical reality.
Gnosticism and Luciferianism are still strong in me, and I don't mean as conscious thoughts, mixture of different ideas, but naturally through that spiritual relationship these things share with Buddhism. Carl Jung is the bond binding them together. Lucifer is the bringer of light, enlightenment is the goal of Buddhism; man aspires and attains, and the goal is within: no outer god with divine mercy bestows it. It's about individual and their psyche. Once Luciferianism is internalized, names and symbols don't matter.
My Luciferian phase was accompanied by disappointment in people, especially religious people, that in a way led to disappointment in god, who made people in his image, or rather, whom people have made in their image.
I still find paradise myth very meaningful. As Edward F. Edinger, Psychologist and Jungian analyst, has interpreted:
The drama of temptation and fall begins when the original state of passive inflation turns into the active inflation of a specific deed. The serpent's whole approach and appeal is expressed in inflationary terms - when you eat of this fruit, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God. So the fruit of the tree is eaten and the inevitable consequences unfold.
It all begins because Adam and Eve dare to act on their desire to be like God. The myth depicts the birth of the consciousness as a crime which alienates man from God and from his original preconscious wholeness. The fruit is clearly symbolical of consciousness. It is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which means that it brings awareness of the opposites, the specific feature of consciousness.
Thus, according to this myth and the theological doctrines that rest on it, consciousness is the original sin, the original hubris, and the root cause of all evil in human nature. However, others have understood it differently. The Ophites, a Gnostic sect, worshipped the serpent. They had essentially the same view as modern psychology. To them the serpent represented the spiritual principle symbolizing redemption from bondage to the demiurge that created the Garden of Eden and would keep man in ignorance.
The serpent was considered good and Yahweh bad. Psychologically the serpent is the principle of Gnosis, knowledge or emerging consciousness. The serpent's temptation represents the urge to self-realization in man and symbolizes the principle of individuation. Some gnostic sects even identified the serpent in the Garden of Eden with Christ. Eating the forbidden fruit marks the transition from the eternal state of unconscious oneness with the Self (the mindless, animal state) to a real conscious life in space and time.
In short, the myth symbolizes the birth of the ego. The effect of this birth process is to alienate the ego from its origins. It now moves into a world of suffering, conflict and uncertainty. No wonder we are reluctant to take the step to greater consciousness.
Indeed. There are no concepts of "sin" or "fall" in original story, neither according to Judaism. This story is actually very empowering - therapeutic myth, as Jung said!
