My Angel is my Demon

 H.P. Blavatsky wrote in her Secret Doctrine:

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

(Lucifer The Lightbringer)

My previous posts on this subject in this blog:

Satan Loves You!

My Visit on the "Dark Side"

Alexandre Cabanel: Fallen Angel, 1847

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

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

Baphomet by Eliphas Levi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Aleister Crowley

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

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

- Aleister Crowley

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

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

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

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

An angel speaks in the novel: 

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

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

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

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

Later it is told:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Satan awoke bathed in an icy sweat.

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

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

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

And Satan, turning to the gardener, said:

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

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

See also: The Litany of Satan by Charles Baudelaire

Les Litanies Des Satan performed by Theatres Des Vampires

Beyond Words

 

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 Mystical Christ, 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.

See Wikipedia: Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

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. 

From Hikaru Nakamura's manga/anime, Saint Young Men

Western Esoterism vs. Buddhism

 Since my previous post was about Finnish Esoteric Organizations, and if you read introduction page of this blog, you know my spiritual background lies heavily in Western Esoterism (or "esotericism"), but nowadays I am Nichiren Buddhist, I thought it might be a good idea to explain in few points what is often wrong about Western Esoterism, in my opinion. They were published here and there in my Finnish blogs, and I just rounded them up for this presentation. 

When I became a seeker for truth in my 20's, I was first very interested, among other things, in some "messengers of the Great White Brotherhood", namely, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Ananda Tara Shan, who were known in Finland in those days of the 1990's, gathering followers. Already then I was wondering about the contradictions I saw in their teachings. 

Also, I once took part in a course led by Denise Linn in Helsinki, named "Past lives for your help". We were supposed to see our "past lives" in meditation. I got impression some participants actually "saw" something, but I had to imagine things, and Denise herself said that's okay too.

Then I suddenly found Lectorium Rosicrucianum, Gnostic Mystery School, and even though after few years I abandoned it through hard and painful process, and later became convinced it was a cult, there was some sense about its teachings, that I have found valuable until this day. 

They taught that the Great White Brotherhood never approached people personally, and never appealed to their ego. That leaves no room for "messengers", or "master-this-and-that". It was also told, that some deceased people in afterlife, who should move forward, try to extend their existence in that state by abusing the living people, stealing their life force through mediumism. 

Now, in Buddhism there are also many Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but they are generally understood as Archetypes of the Mind. By the way, Mme Blavatsky's original non-ascended masters, Koot Hoomi and Morya, whoever or whatever they were, at least according to so called "Mahatma Letters" they supposedly wrote, were without a doubt Buddhists. I can still revere Blavatsky: see, for example, "Original Theosophy and Later Versions", and "The Danger and Deception of Channeling". 

Later I was involved with Anthroposophy, and it started to bother me how Rudolf Steiner inhabited the whole universe with spiritual beings. That kind of thinking seemed so medieval. And I certainly don't mean I don't believe in Spiritual World at all!

About Reincarnation Lectorium Rosicrucianum taught that you have never ever lived before, and you will never ever live again. Teachings referred to "microcosmic predecessors", instead of past lives. There is this idea in Anthroposophy, that kind of reminds of Buddhist concept: There is no personal soul that lives forever. Frankly, Christian "hope" of everlasting life seems very twisted and egoistic to me: what kind of person wants to preserve their imperfect personality forever!? It is because of fear of death. So it was not difficult to me to embrace Buddhist idea of no-self and impermanence. However, in Anthroposophy there is Spirit above soul, I am, that is not your earthly personality, but something higher, and sometimes this belief seems to lead only to highly cultivated egoism. 

My transference to Buddhism was very smooth. My thinking was already gradually leaning more and more towards Eastern philosophy. I think for many believers of Reincarnation it is unclear what exactly is reincarnated. I don't even use a word "Reincarnation" anymore, because it is so misleading in Buddhist context. As Sagharakshita said: According to a strict orthodox Buddhist view, there is Reincarnation, but no one who reincarnates. I love paradoxes! Especially in religion, they are often the best way to explain something (and at the same time leave it a mystery). 

How about Karma? At one point of life I was having a hard time, and then an old Rosicrucian said to me it was my karma, I had done something to deserve what was happening. I didn't mind back then, but if someone more vulnerable had been told that... Not only was it heartless, but unwise as well. It seems to me, that for Western karma believers it is often too simplified, black and white. Karma is not a mathematical mechanism.

When I was already in transition from (Esoteric) Christianity onward, I was satisfied with teachings that unified Christian concept of "sin" and karma. Through the four Gospels we are told that every deed has its consequences, either here or in Heaven. Every deed is seen and weighed, you can't hide anything. Karma simply means "action" and sin ("hamartia") means to err, to miss the mark. So, all action is erring. From Esoteric Christian point of view, I have published two posts in this blog in 2007: Reincarnation and Karma, and What I have come to learn about Karma & Grace. 

Again, to credit Lectorium Rosicrucianum, it was taught that death as a victim of violence is never part of human destiny meant to take place, it's always premature. And I think Rudolf Steiner understood karma better than many Theosophical authorities. He said:

Many events we encounter in our lives do not result from good or bad past actions. Such events will find their karmic compensation in the future. If I am blameless of what now befalls me, I will find compensation in the future. The fact that nothing remains without karmic adjustment is unequivocal. However, whether a man's present experience is the effect of his karmic past or the cause of a future karma must be determined individually. 

But none of us is able to see it, so we are not qualified to judge. In Nichiren Buddhism, a metaphor of lotus is used: it's blooming and seeding at the same time, a cause and effect are simultaneously present. Despite of past karma, we must focus on present: our deeds now effect our future situation, we deepen the good causes, or change our tendencies, setting the course of our life. 

Buddha said that if you really try to figure out the origin of every karmic consequence, you might get mad. He didn't teach that everything happening to us is a consequence of previous karma. Buddha's teaching on karma is not deterministic, nor it is nihilism; it is the middle-way, including awareness, that effects of previous deeds are experienced all the time, and understanding, that we can always choose how to act. 

About Anthroposophy, one point of disagreement for me was the status of Rudolf Steiner. His followers raise him high above averaged person, and judged by his own writings, he was not innocent for that himself. Yes, he claimed that everyone can train their clairvoyance, but practically he was - and still is - the only approved authority in spiritual matters among Anthroposophists. His every word is taken as divine truth. We see here an example of "guru" in Western context. I have rather admired people on spiritual path, who were not claimed to be flawless supermen, like H.P. Blavatsky. "Perfection" is suspicious to me, and something I dislike. This "guru-attitude" is also one thing I don't like about Soka Gakkai International: I have got  inspiration from Daisaku Ikeda's writings, and  I gladly receive inspiration from wherever I find it, but I refuse to focus on one teacher specifically. As I have told before, Pekka Ervast was my spiritual mentor for many years, I don't deny that, but now I follow the voice of my heart (emphasized by the fact that I'm an independent practitioner). Shakyamuni Buddha conjures up the image of golden statue in lotus position, with blissful expression on his face. He is the high ideal, surrounded by myths and legends, whose teachings were written down much later (but at least he is not claimed to be god). That's why he is also quite distant to me. I always say I'm Buddhist first, then if necessary I specify, Nichiren Buddhist. Nichiren is kind of closer to me, both in time and humanely, and he did write himself. I don't worship him, yet I would like to exchange the Buddha statue on my altar for the statue of Nichiren Shonin. But even statues basically point towards the within, just like Nichiren's calligraphic mandala Gohonzon. Nichiren himself criticized some Buddhist schools of his time for overly relying on gurus and masters. 

Buddha didn't deny existence of gods, he only made it clear it is insignificant for us to contemplate here and now. Long ago I stopped praying to higher power, in hope that some fairy godbeing grants my petty wishes, changing the laws of the universe for my sake (and I must say there are branches of Nichiren Buddhism, that are seemingly prone to similar magical thinking). The Lord's Prayer used to be important to me, and I have composed an explanation of it in relation to Chakras. Interestingly enough, similar chart has been made of Daimoku (Nichiren's mantra), below...

 Nowadays I often spell "god" with lowercase (and sometimes with parenthesis). No, I don't believe in god, if by "god" we mean omnipotent being Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) portray. So I guess it actually depends on definition of "god", but I rather leave that open. The word in itself is so loaded with cultural imagination, that it is best not to use it at all. However, as many Western Buddhists tend to be Atheists - at least that's how I have understood - and although Atheism in itself simply means not believing in god, generally it is understood in broader sense as denial of everything spiritual, I don't consider myself an Atheist. In Nichiren Buddhism we have this concept of "myoho", mystical law, spiritual aspect of life intertwining with the material aspect of life, not in Western dualistic sense, but as unity. And I do believe in rebirth, if that was unclear. Buddhism didn't completely change my beliefs, rather they were strengthened and clarified.

So I have gone to the source, where many of those ideas, introduced to me in my 20's by Western Esoterism, originate from, and today I must strongly state that I can no longer accept the fact that Westerners take Eastern ideas and concepts, and mix them with their own worldview. They even take Buddha, but give him entirely different role. I mean, for instance, Anthroposophical idea of Buddha as the forerunner and preparer of the way for Christ. NO WAY! That is almost offensive to me! Let's take Buddhism as pure Buddhism, an independent philosophy, standing on its own. Of course I know it has developed differently in various cultures, forming many more or less differing schools. Even Nichiren interpreted its teachings in his own way, but still within Buddhism and in terms of its own. 

LONESOME PATH

This is continuation to previous writings, DISILLUSIONED - ENGLIGHTENED, and CHANGES.

When I observe other spiritual or religious (I used to be "religious", now I'm rather "spiritual"!) people I know, it seems to me their spiritual life remains steady, in a sense that whether there are ups and downs - and who wouldn't have those? - they always keep their basic belief system anyway.

That is not the case with me. My spiritual life has had as many as THREE major turns. And I really mean everything turned upside down. I have told some details in this blog before, but I may have to repeat some and complete the story. 

As a child and young boy I believed in God, but Jesus was a distant figure to me. As a teenager, I got interested in Spiritualism. In my 20's I became a New Age geek. Then I got deeply involved with the gnostic mystery school, Lectorium Rosicrucianum, and that I count as my first major turn, because everything I had believed so far, changed radically, and very quickly - I took everything I was taught for granted, and didn't question any of it: homosexuality was wrong, meditation was dangerous, all churches should be avoided, and so on. World view of LR is esoteric, but practically it's more like extremely conservative and inward sect, like that of Jehovah's Witnesses.

After I met my partner, I could no longer keep going that road; I was looking for help, and I found it from The Christian Community: so I became a liberal Christian (esoterist). That was the second major turn: again I had to change my world view altogether, but this time it didn't just happen - I kind of had to force it; consequently, for the first few months I was like wandering in the desert, feeling no connection with God or other people. But then I felt like I had finally incarnated in this world and accepted my part as a being of this earth. And my newly found faith carried me over some really hard times - other people witnessed that I radiated light, I had inner light even in the middle of hardship. 

For ten years I was dedicated and active member of my congregation, but gradually in recent years things started to change again, this time slowly and by themselves. I no longer found joy in participating in church activities as I used to do, and I withdrew from many of them. All along I had many ambitions of my own - leading a prayer and discussion group and creating a website. Then came that final strike I report in my post, DISILLUSIONED - ENGLIGHTENED. I never really got over that - it stripped me off all my remaining idealism and opened my eyes to see the bare reality of human nature. Obviusly, that was not something completely new to me; it was a burden increased during all my life, until it was too much to bear and pretend it is not there. Starting from my 20's when I was extremely naive and unknowing, over-excited when making new friends - I've never had many - and expecting too much from them, I have become rather cynical. A cynical realist, as I would say. I have become convinced that you can't expect much from people, because no one really gives a shit! And so I don't give a shit anymore. Or maybe I do - too much - and that exactly is a problem! In my darkest moments I wish humanity would be destroyed, and there would be no life after death whatsoever.

Is it any wonder that Satan has entered my world, along with Christ, and not as adversary but as coequal "deity". Here I have found useful clarification from theology of the Process Church of the Final Judgment. (When I study some philosophy profoundly, I tend to become one with it, at least for a while.)  It is not about belief; it's just logical structure to work with. Satan brings separation, Christ is Unifier; man's task is to reconcile Satan with Christ through love, "to save God" who fragmented himself while creating the world, so that GOD can be reborn.
My dark side is very strong, and I don't think I can do any good by denying or rejecting it. Neither I can abandon Christ - so they just have to get along! It's like demon and angel within me in passionate and violent embrace. People talk about left-hand path and right-hand path, but it's difficult to live with only one hand, isn't it? For me, it's not about choosing one or the other; it's about unification, finding peace and love between the two. (See also my former post, "Satan loves you!")
Also, Satan obviously appeals to me because of rebellious nature associated with him, now that I have broken my ties with formal Christianity and Church institution, and as I have always rebelled against human norms. Yet I'm very conscientious and dutiful person; I have to be strong and I have to take care of everything. Part of me is tired and wants to let go. But I can not. I must carry on for others dependent on me.

The following quote was taken from forum of The Sect of the Horned God, and it resonates with my way of thinking:

"Deities (or gods, demons, whatever) are aspects of the human mind, or psyche if you like to sound all educated and posh. They do not exist in a literal or abstract sense, at least not in the physical meaning. They are not real on an objective level (obviously), but they are very real inside the mind of a person and do not rule the mind but are a part of it.
They exist as focal points of different aspects of our personality and when used in myth, are magnified parts of human behavior and human emotion. In short, gods are personified emotions and impulses, symbolic representations of parts of ourselves.
Now this is just what I perceive them to be. But they also have a use, else they would not exist, or at least, nobody would bother giving them a name and talking about them. Gods help us in two ways. Firstly, they help us understand ourself and the world around us. To do so, people have created myths to give gods a backdrop to show us what they are about and what their goals are. These myths are nothing more than generalized experiences or perhaps dreams people had long ago and simplified and generalized down into a form that was usable for everyone. With that, we come to the second use of gods, exploring our inner selves, both our subconscious as well as the conscious parts of ourselves we do not know, have repressed or simply do not understand. In this respect, gods are useful as focal points, guides that help us on the path to discovering, understanding and developing ourself. We might use them in rituals and at that time suspend our disbelief and chant incantations, pray to them or bring them offerings to strike a bargain or ask them to do something for us. While at that time we disconnect ourselves from the real world and for the purpose of the ritual may believe in them (even though in the back of our head we still know they aren't real), we only use them at that time to connect with ourselves. Because gods are a part of ourselves, this means of communication makes it easier to connect with our subconscious. This is the same reason why symbols and certain mythological concepts are understood by people from around the world in largely the same manner, because it speaks to a part of ourselves that we normally aren't able to come in contact with, but which is nevertheless very potent and has a very big influence on the way we lead our lives. I suppose you could say they are the lense through which our subconscious sees the outer world and function both as windows to see into our subconscious and as a mirror to show us who we really are."

Even I'm not sure if I'm just trying to refrain from making a final conclusion that I have actually become an agnostic. Still I rather define myself as Gnostic, which of course is basicly quite the opposite - but in modern usage it is highly ambiguous. See for example, "Are you a Gnostic?" , which is one of the loosest definitions I have seen. Contrary to that, Lectorium Rosicrucianum represents very pure and original Gnosticism with its sharp distinction between material world and Divine world - very strict doctrine. For me, gnosticism today rather means absolute freedom and individuality in matters of Spirit.

And to doubt the existence of God? I find myself incapable to do that. At least for now. Even though God may be so transcendent, mankind is left alone on earth and we have no choice but to make up these theological concepts and images trying to cope with this existential loneliness. So there are "lesser gods", or "manifested gods", we are dealing with, instead of The Absolute.

Basically, mine is a kind of "do-it-yourself-religion". When I think too much - and I do have a sad tendency for that - I may feel deep desperation for human condition, but when I just practice ritualistic devotion and meditation, I am connected with Higher Source (or that still point within, which is One with the Source); intellect separates and heart unites. Those who do not think, they don't see, and therefore they don't suffer so much. Suffering is inevitable companion for enlightenment, for seeing more clear. I often find myself asking that classical question: "Am I crazy or is everyone else crazy?"
I guess it has everything to do with my fundamental characteristics - being an introvert. It very much defines who I am as a person. There was a time I was desperately seeking for connection with other people through spiritual groups; I can not deny sometimes I was succesful, usually within some common meditative setting; but mostly, time after time I was disappointed. Now I have come to understand that I don't need community; weakness of spiritual community is more or less required common belief system, doctrinal unity. I can not share that with anyone. As satanist Diane Vera so well puts it, "If a group of people agree on the idea that 'there shall be no dogmas,' then that idea in itself has thereby become a group dogma -- or, more precisely, a metadogma (a dogma about dogmas). Furthermore, whenever any group of people gets together for any common purpose whatsoever, that common purpose is a group dogma. But there are many things that a united group of people can accomplish which its individual members couldn't accomplish (at least not nearly as easily) all by themselves. So, an absolute prohibition on dogma  -  if it were logically possible  -  would severely limit human achievement."
My path is lonesome, and so be it. There have always existed hermits who practice their spirituality in solitude, apart from human society, yet interceding for all mankind. I have read it is easier to "love all people" if you stay away from them - in my experience that sounds understandable.  I don't need to isolate myself from the society - wilderness of my mind is enough. The best discussions I've always had with myself, in my mind.
And when you connect with The Divine, isn't there invisible connection with other people who connect with The Divine as well? "The communion of saints", as the Apostles' Creed puts it, be they living or dead. And I don't think it knows any boundaries of Faith either. This is what the plural form of The Our Father is referring to, and "When two or three are gathered in my Name..." does not necessarily mean in one place at the same time. (This poem of mine, called "Sorrowful Role of Humanity", depicts my feelings very well; it was inspired - came through me without much thinking. You might think it's gloomy, but I see a glimpse of hope there after all.)
When I practice, I don't "believe" something - I AM present in the presence of The Divine. There is neither belief or disbelief at that time, just being; openness and receptivity. Certain images and ideas are enlivened, and it's like opening a window to spiritual realm; for a short moment, reality becomes transparent for the otherworldly. 

DISILLUSIONED - ENLIGHTENED

Note on 12/21/2013: Now that I have revealed the whole story also on my Finnish blog, without hiding any facts, I can say that my denomination is The Christian Community, and the other one mentioned is The Liberal Catholic Church.

In this writing I will reveal the unpleasant truth – some who know me may also know factual connection, but since I don’t give names and even write in foreign language, no one can forbid me to write and publish these things in my personal blog: it is therapy I need during this turmoil of events. Yet the closer people are to the centre of events, the more they should be aware of what is happening. Now it’s very “hush, hush”. I don’t know how much talking there is behind my back. I hope my thoughts may have value to other people in similar situations. And I’m sure there are many of them.

New Year began in a hard way for me. I was attacked by small but VERY LOUD group (of four people) within my congregation. (To be more precise, there is one person with three yes men.) And only because we were supposed to organize ecumenical meeting with another denomination, and that was my initiative. Now it had to be cancelled; our pastor – who was supportive to idea – was put against the wall. She had no other choice at that point. There was very intentional and dirty scheming behind the scenes. It was carefully planned so that only priests were called for meeting – the one, whom it mostly concerned, me, was disregarded - and they refused to tell anything in advance, so that nobody could be prepared. And they totally manipulated another priest present, just as they wished. 

I was accused of bringing “opposing forces” to our church, and making it appear like a sect, when in fact, these same people judged according to their behaviour, clearly represented “opposing forces”, and by their attitude, they were making our church precisely a narrow-minded sect. Their accusations would be ridiculous, unless they were also so sad, telling about their fears and prejudices.

This is not the church I came in 15 years ago, and these people don’t represent the church I have come to know. What they represent is distorted caricature of it; their behaviour is completely against the Spirit of Christ, It’s anti-Christian. These self-proclaimed “guardians of the truth” are nothing but fossils clinging to the past, refusing to come over to this day. Pride – worst of all sins: “We are so excellent and know it all; we don’t need to know anything outside our own comfort zone.”

Even my Mystical Order of the White Rose –Scandinavian Skete of Mary Magdalene website was their target, since I mentioned my church few times - when for example, I told about my own spiritual journey - and always in neutral manner, emphasizing, it had nothing to do with contents of this site. I have deleted those parts – in fact, I have deleted every sentence on this blog where I named my church, just like I have deleted my Facebook badge (I used to be open about my identity online; I’m happy to tell you my whole name if you contact me, and welcome you to befriend with me on Facebook!). I feel like standing before the inquisition accused of heresy and witchcraft; I’m sure they would gladly burn me at the stake if that was possible these days.

As I have been a member of the spiritual school, where they strongly warned against all churches and their Services – which caused me great difficulties when I first started to attend this church I belong nowadays – I dare to claim I have much wider perspective on these matters than these people attacking me. Not to mention the fact I have same inner experience of that other church we were going to meet, as the one I belong, and I know many people who attend both churches and like them both, even people who have family members in both churches. Their experiences have been questioned too, not only mine!

I’m only sorry to hold on to my right to think for myself, and regret I ever took “Freedom of thought” claims of my church seriously.

I’ve had support, but I’m not satisfied; I don’t need to defend myself against such an absurd and crazy accusations, but neither I feel I’m getting justice, because we “need to listen, discuss, understand, and give a chance…” blah, blah, blah. These same people harmed our congregation 20 years ago, before my time, until they disappeared. Today, as the priests have changed, they have crawled back to continue their wicked games. Until now, my congregation was like a haven of peace, and I only heard distant echoes of troubles elsewhere. But the snake is back in paradise. If these people haven’t changed in 20 years, how could we expect it to happen now, just like that?! Forgiveness is indeed a Christian virtue, but it is followed by demand, “sin no more”!

Our former, retired pastor was a strict character, and even I had my disagreements with him, but now I have come to respect him in a new way: at least he kept trouble-makers out!

I feel like I’m pushed in the corner. It’s like the atmosphere of my congregation is poisoned; I don’t feel like going there anymore. I have many duties, which I think I will reduce. Now I have to put myself first and protect myself. I would not expect less than apology from these people, but I don’t think I will have it; people like them rarely are capable to admit they have done anything wrong. I’m not the only one who’s been in their teeth: in their great arrogance and egoism they void every opinion that contradicts their illusions, and roll over other people with aggressive zeal.

However, all my spiritual life has been under major changes for at least over a year or so. I have never stopped seeking and asking questions – even doubting and questioning. I think that is healthy – only when there is movement, there is life.

I prayed for a sign from God, which way to go, and suddenly I realized, this is it: God works in marvellous ways – He can use adversities as His messengers. And it happened right in the beginning of the year, when I wanted to start something new. It seems to me, God is saying, “You don’t need a church. You don’t need a religion. You need to live!”

Don’t get me wrong: God and church, God and religion… completely different things. Religion does not make you happy; if you take it too seriously, it will make you crazy. In the middle of hardship, you see what is really important in life; it is so self-evident, you may often fail to see it: close and dear people and pets.

For me, religion is a kind of “Holy play”. I remember as a child – and even a bit older – I created these fantasy worlds in my mind... and in what dedication I prepared for play before I even started. Now I see it’s still the same thing as an adult; now it just takes place within frames of religion. I don’t know if there is life after death, I don’t know if Christ is a real person. I don’t think it matters! People only tend to make God smaller whenever something is said about Him.

I think the Kingdom of Heaven is a realm of creativity and imagination, and “being like little children” refers to devotion – literally – that children have when they play; they don’t need to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, they live in it, and at the same time they enjoy the world around with all their senses. So, don’t be too grown up, don’t take religion too seriously!

Religious life is concerned with feelings, and that’s why it may also cause collisions between persons, no matter how reasonable they think they are.

I have been hurt by religion before – that’s when I came to my present church, where I thought no one could come in the name of the church to tell me, how I should think or live. And how wrong I was! Now I see this church has also become too narrow for me – I have grown beyond it.

All churches are alike, there is no ideal community on this earth, since people make community, and people are alike everywhere; in every place there are all kinds of people – including dogmatic fanatics. Noble and high principles don’t make a difference – it is life that matters. For me, damage has been done – if you want to call it that way; I would rather call it enlightenment – I’m disillusioned. Right now I’m ashamed of my church, and yet, it is not I who should be ashamed! 

Life may often bring you suffering you can not avoid. But at least modern Westerner more or less chooses his or her religious affiliations – even if you have been raised within certain belief system. When religion, that is supposed to support you in this life too, and not only in after life, instead causes you suffering, it can’t be right.

Last time I had to deal with spiritual movement that forbade me to live as a gay man. It was a hard struggle. Even after I had resigned and joined this other community, where that was not a problem, it took me 10 years before I was able to admit even to myself, that I had belonged to narrow-minded sect, and stopped explaining it was my fault that I couldn’t adapt. Also to get rid of my past, I once needed to commit myself to my new community very deeply. 

Lately, thinkers who have seen a bigger picture outside the box attract me; people like Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti. I also realized a long time dream and took part in Zen meditation class. I have began to practice twice a day – oh, how much I had longed for meditation, and now I don’t understand why it was so hard to begin in the first place – and go to Zendo weekly. Zen is so simple; it is life itself, just pure being here and now. With my background of esoteric Christianity, today I’m just fed up with theories and speculations about life after death, reincarnation, karma… I need something real right now! I’m not dead yet. And mere theories and speculations they remain, for people simply choose to believe what this or that spiritual teacher wrote. Even if they had psychic experiences of their own, they just choose to believe they mean something. You know nothing. I know nothing. Nobody knows! Period.

There are many great examples of uniting Zen methods with Christianity as well. (I have always honored Buddha as well.) To the horror of more traditional minds, I think it is justified in our time for individual – and I do mean a true individual, not another sheep in a flock – to form his or her own beliefs and practices.

As I have stated in my vision, “Future is for the religion of the Holy Spirit: Spirit unites people with invisible bonds, from within.”

I always remember how one priest of my church once said, the ultimate purpose of churches and priests is to make themselves useless! For long time now, I have felt I don’t really need a church anymore, except for community. Like Jesus said, “A time is coming and in fact has come…” Future is already here – it won’t come to humanity as a whole, it will come gradually to individual people, one by one, here and there.

 I am a priest to myself. Every night in my daily prayers I have spiritual communion. It would be a small step to bless a piece of bread and some grape juice and experience that as valid Eucharist, but I have refrained from that action because I have been still going to church.

There is an excellent website – Ways of Christ – available in many languages (including my native tongue, Finnish), which I have found to be very informative and useful. I have no idea who is behind it, but it certainly is not restricted to the “one and only truth”. For question, why would man need a church or community, they answer:

It is, of course, possible to have an individual connection to Jesus Christ and to God. This is the heart of the matter. Even the impulses required from outside can come directly by God's guidance if one notices these finer signs.

However, there is another level of this connection, which can only unfold in community with others: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them (Matthew 18, 19-20). At first this simply means what it says. This experience would be more difficult from a distance, e.g. if people synchronize it; but it is possible. A mystic might experience that unity even without verbal arrangement, although that would be too much for most people. People are not usually born for the hermit life.

This kind of prayer fellowship can lead to a regular private circle. One can also find it in a parish, or in another religious community fitting to one's individual belief. Even though the tradition of some churches may over-emphasize their role for the believers, this doesn't change the purpose of being in community with others.

Online community is community too, even more so, if people involved pray for one another. And when it comes to Communion, it is said:

The bread represents the substance (and/or the soul) of Jesus Christ, the "Word of God". The wine represents the divine spirit of Christ, which gives life to this Word of God for altruistic work. The Catholic Church stressed the change of the substance of the bread and wine to the pure flesh and blood of Jesus, while the Protestant Churches stressed the remembrance of Jesus. On one hand both are right. Scientists found out that even the simple "holy water" of the Catholic Church shows that the angle of the water molecules had changed. However, the most important viewpoint would be the change within the person taking part, by attuning to what really radiates from the transformed and transforming "flesh and blood" of Jesus Christ. So it would be good to do this practice in the churches with great concentration. Some even tried to do this directly in spirit only - without the visible help of bread and wine – and still felt the effect, which is a lot more difficult to achieve. For those who want to practice a blessed meal without claiming it to be a "Holy Sacrament" of the church, it can be called "Agape" - supper of love.