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

CHANGES

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

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

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

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

My own personal Jesus

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

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

SATAN LOVES YOU!

  "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19)
In Latin Vulgate:
"...Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris."

This is my attempt to explain why a person like me, who honors Jesus Christ, is also "tempted" (I don't  really like to use that word because it may give a wrong impression in this context) by Satanism, and what "Satanism" actually means to me in the first place.

Marko (the blonde one).

When a teenager speaks of being a Satanist, I think it's because of seeking for attention and pursuit for oddity. There have been cases like vandalizing graveyards and even burning churches - at least in Nordic countries - attributed to Devil worship, and proud Satanists surely disclaim that; it is stupid and immature behaviour. 

When a middle-aged person like myself, speaks of Satanism in positive tone, it is result of life-experience and a lot of thinking. I must admit there is much about life that has made me rather cynical - but perhaps it's better to say I consider myself to be a cynical realist. I feel that Faith in Light alone is insufficient. Darkness has its rightful place in the universe, and it is not actually "evil" at all.

Let me make it clear: I don't believe in Satan as an entity, neither I believe in Absolute evil. There is simply nothing absolute in this world - everything is relative, including "good" and "evil". It's like yin and yang - there is no white without a little black, and vice versa.
I'm willing to admit there might be "evil spirits", so to speak, who may influence on the living according to their specific mortal weaknesses, "tempting" them, but evil comes from the human heart, and I'm inclined towards believing with Emanuel Swedenborg, that these beings are no more than deceased humans, whose nature is evil (and yet, I don't believe this state is permanent either; after long period of purification they too may enter Heaven, once they realize their condition and wish to change).
I don't claim to fully understand this Mystery of good and evil, I only see poetic fragments and vague visions. I have no more need to find explanations for all things in life - to "know" for sure. It's impossible. Sure you can choose philosophy that pleases you and stick to it, yet it is only one theory among others. This writing is not giving you all the answers, but it shows various ways to proceed on, trying to find your own answers - if you feel need for them.

Light and Darkness 

Goethe's theory of colours states that to perceive colours, interaction of light and shadow is needed  - contrary to Newton's popularly accepted claim that white light contains full spectrum of colours. I think that is remarkably true also in metaphysical sense, concerning the whole of human life!

Another picture that made an impression on me since I first heard of it years ago - it's so obvious you have hardly thought about it: we think space is dark and black as we see it in the starry sky, but in reality it is full of sun light which only becomes visible when it meets an object, an obstacle, like planet. What an analog! "The light shines in the darkness..."

Eliphas Lévi on Satan and Lucifer...

The great Eliphas Lévi wrote: 

Satan is merely a type, not a real personage. It is the type opposed to the Divine type, the necessary foil to this in our imagination. It is the factitious shadow which renders visible to us the infinite light of the Divine. If Satan was a real personage then would there be two Gods, and the creed of the Manicheans would be a truth.
Satan is the imaginary conception of the absolute in evil; a conception necessary to the complete affirmation of the liberty of the human will, which, by the help of this imaginary absolute seems able to equilibrate the entire power even of God. It is the boldest, and perhaps, the sublimest of the dreams of human pride.
"You shall be as Gods knowing good and evil," saith the allegorical serpent in the Bible. Truly to make evil a science is to create a God of evil, and if any spirit can eternally resist God, there is no longer one God but two Gods. To resist the Infinite, infinite force is necessary, and two infinite forces opposed to each other must neutralize each other. If resistance on the part of Satan is possible the power of God no longer exists, God and the Devil destroy each other, and man remains alone; he remains alone with the phantom of his Gods, the hybrid sphynx, the winged bull, which poises in its human hand a sword of which the wavering lightnings drive the human imagination from one error to the other, and from the despotism of the light, to the despotism of the darkness.
The history of mundane misery is but the romance of the war of the Gods, a war still unfinished, while the Christian world still adores a God in the Devil, and a Devil in God. The antagonism of powers is anarchy in Dogma. Thus to the church which affirms that the Devil exists the world replies with a terrifying logic: then God does not exist; and it is vain to seek escape from this argument to invent the supremacy of a God who would permit a Devil to bring about the damnation of men; such a permission would be a monstrosity, and would amount to complicity, and the god that could be an accomplice of the devil, cannot be God.
The Devil of Dogmas is a personification of Atheism. The Devil of Philosophy is the exaggerated ideal of human free-will. The real or physical Devil is the magnetism of evil. Raising the Devil is but realizing for an instant this imaginary personality. This involves the exaggeration in one's self beyond bounds of the perversity of madness by the most criminal and senseless acts. The result of this operation is the death of the soul through madness, and often the death of the body even, lightning-struck, as it were, by a cerebral congestion. The Devil ever importunes, but nothing ever gives in return. St. John calls it "the Beast" (la Bête) because its essence is human folly (la Bêtise humaine).

 And of Lucifer, he wrote:

Glory to the Holy Ghost, who has promised victory over earth and over heaven to the angel of liberty! The angel of liberty was born before the dawn of the first day, before even the awakening of intelligence, and God called him the morning star.
O Lucifer! Voluntarily and disdainfully thou didst detach thyself from the heaven where the sun drowned thee in his splendour, to plow with thine own rays the unworked fields of night! Thou shinest when the sun sets, and thy sparkling gaze precedes the daybreak! Thou fallest to rise again; thou tastest of death to understand life better!
For the ancient glories of the world, thou art the evening star; for truth renascent, the lovely star of dawn. Liberty is not licence, for licence is tyranny. Liberty is the guardian of duty, because it reclaims right. Lucifer, of whom the dark ages have made the genius of evil, will be truly the angel of light when, having conquered liberty at the price of infamy, he will make use of it to submit himself to eternal order, inaugurating thus the glories of voluntary obedience. 

 Rudolf Steiner and two evils

 Distinction between the two, Lucifer and Satan, is made by many. Rudolf Steiner was one spiritual teacher who systematically taught there exists not one, but two basic personifications of "evil", Lucifer being one, and the other he named after evil principle of Zoroastrianism: Ahriman (a.k.a. Satan).
"Lucifer appeals to our pride and ambition. He wants us to think we have no limitations..." "Ahriman seeks the opposite of Lucifer. When Lucifer would hold us back, Ahriman wishes us to advance far faster than is good for us..." "In sum: Luciferic beings lead us to underestimate and flee from the earth while Ahrimanic beings lead us to overestimate and crave the earth." (James H. Hindes: Renewing Christianity - Rudolf Steiner's ideas in practice. Anthroposophic Press 1996)
 I don't personally buy his theory, at least entirely, but I have to admit it's quite useful hypothesis to work with, because it shows how relative concepts we are dealing with. Especially "Good" according to Steiner's theory, is not something opposite to evil: it is in the middle of two evils, like Christ on the cross between two criminals. Good is a living principle, a stream that can't be calculated. There is a middle way, the spiritual centre, between two extremities, which are negative when they are one-sided. Evil is diverged either to the left or to the right, and it firmly takes a particular form - it has fallen behind. However, Steiner also points out that both Lucifer and Ahriman are necessary in their rightful places: "We need the pride and self esteem which come from Lucifer to remind us that we are spiritual beings who have ideals and that at times should reach for the stars regardless of our earthly situation. So, too, we need a sober estimation of our possibilities based on the weight of our earthly situation." (Same source as above)
There are others, however, who declare that Satan and Lucifer are more like two sides of one coin, or two faces of one being. It seems obvious they are more than just two names given for one character, each having its own characteristics. 

The Church of Satan

Founding of the Church of Satan in 1968 meant the New Era for Satanism, for it was now made public. I have read the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, and I'm also reading memoirs of Michael Aquino, who was active in the Church of Satan until he founded the Temple of Set. I can understand conclusions that may have led people to philosophy like that, and there's nothing scary about it to me, but basically it's just Atheism in very aggressive guise, and it's hard to see anything positive and constructive in that; but at least it's honest, and challenging fundamentalistic Christianity, showing what it really is, a truly insidious and devilish evil force - a wolf in sheep's clothing - making a lot of damage in human psyche in the name of God!

God's Quality

In Hebrew, Satan means “the accuser,” or “the adversary", and it is used in the Hebrew Bible as a title, not as a name of being. Satan was not originally a person, but one of God's qualities; not a being, but one of God's forces. In 2 Samuel 24:1 we read: "Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.'" The Chronicles that were written later, tell a same incident differently: "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." (1 Chr.21:1)
Indeed; Freud wrote that perhaps not much ability for analysis is needed to guess that God and the Devil were originally identical, and God was lonesome personality who was later divided into two personalities, defined by opposite qualities. In original religion God had all those terrible characteristics, of which gathered together his opposite was later formed.

Satan is saved!

Why doesn't God destroy the Tempter, asked Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro, in the 60's, and he answered: because God loves him! Love never destroys anyone, but rather suffers for the loved one. And then Voitto Viro boldly suggests: when we start to pray for him and love him, completely new realization of the Christian light is dawning!
Church Father Origen taught, that in the end even Satan is saved!

Muslims and Yazidis

In Quran, Satan (Iblis) is a Jinn who refused to bow to Adam, and it caused him to fall out of Grace with God. Religious Kurdish community of the Yazidis have been accused of Devil worship by Muslims. They believe in one God who created the world and entrusted it into the care of seven Holy Beings or Angels, and preeminent among these is Tawûsê Melek (frequently known as "Melek Taus" in English publications), the Peacock Angel. The story regarding Tawûsê Melek's rise to favor with God is almost identical to the story of the jinn Iblis in Islam, except that Yazidis revere Tawûsê Melek for refusing to submit to God by bowing to Adam. However, Yazidis believe he is a leader of the archangels, not a fallen one, and not a source of evil; source of evil is in the heart and spirit of humans themselves! (From Wikipedia)
Sufi Mystics also viewed Iblis as a lover of God who refused to worship anyone but God.

Snake in the Garden

Snake in the garden of Eden is misunderstood creature. Some Gnostics interpret it as symbol of Christ, who opened the eyes of Adam and Eve, and awakened them from the blissful darkness of unawareness to the disturbing light of self-awareness. Before the snake, Adam and Eve just blindly obeyed. In fact, paradise-like state was very unintellectual and morally lazy for man. Only after the Fall man became man with his good and bad aspects. Story depicts awakening from vagueness of original consciousness to self experience, from instinctive state to become aware of good and evil. This was great progress in evolution. Man as freely operating being is naturally the opposite of soulless perfection, which in reality would be imperfection if it had forced him to commit acts he wouldn't have rejoiced of. He would not know the difference between God and a rock. According to Friedrich Schiller, the Fall was the happiest moment of the world history. There are no words "sin" and "fall" in the Scripture, but there is "banishment": it is part of child birth, child is banished from the womb where everything was easy - now it's time for life, work, pains, and sexuality.
Remember, Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole, as the Lord told him, and Jesus said to his followers,  "be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"! In ancient Middle East snake was a symbol of wisdom, and mediator, representing ability to comprehend incoherence of life: some snakes are poisonous, some are not.

Blavatsky: Paganism and Kabbalah

How convenient to accuse some supernatural being of our own faults. Yet, man is not all corrupt; be there the original sin (and I'm not sure if there is), there is also a seed of original goodness in us; that is inborn quality, evil is alien to us and comes from without. (See in this blog: Some reflections on the problem of evil according to Pekka Ervast.)
 H.P. Blavatsky writes in her massive work, The Secret Doctrine: ... "Christian theology, although following slavishly in the steps of Paganism, was only true to its own time-honoured policy. It had to isolate itself, and to assert its authority. Hence it could not do better than turn every pagan deity into a devil. Every bright sun-god of antiquity -- a glorious deity by day, and its own opponent and adversary by night, named the Dragon of Wisdom, because it was supposed to contain the germs of night and day -- has now been turned into the antithetical shadow of God, and has become Satan on the sole and unsupported authority of despotic human dogma. After which all these producers of light and shadow, all the Sun and the Moon Gods, were cursed, and thus the one God chosen out of the many, and Satan, were both anthropomorphised." [...] "The Kabbalists say that the true name of Satan is that of Jehovah placed upside down, for 'Satan is not a black god but the negation of the white deity,' or the light of Truth. God is light and Satan is the necessary darkness or shadow to set it off, without which pure light would be invisible and incomprehensible."

Pekka Ervast: Satan and his abnegation

Pekka Ervast [see the links on the sidebar] also taught about Satan: in reality Satan is quite different from the picture Christian doctrine has made of him. In the Book of Job he is member of the counsel of gods. He is infinitely great angel, high divine being, one of the most supreme rulers of our Solar System. According to Ervast, seven holy platenary spirits represent - along with the representative of the Sun - the highest dominion in our Solar System. Satan is the planetary spirit of the Earth. He is the director of the action of Karma. His mission is to school human beings, who must solve the problem of good and evil. This planet is the school of suffering. It means infinite abnegation for Satan; he mustn't show himself at all - he only must give his great power for people to use, and in a way, mask himself. It is not a pleasant task for him; it brings him curses, not glory. His abnegation is, that he can't directly use his goodness and wisdom: we are too small to understand more than that it is great abnegation to decline everything by order and for love for beings who must evolve, and only give one's creative power for others fairly ignorant to misuse.
Since Jesus of Nazareth, Christ has become the Higher Self of the Earth, but Satan is still the Lower Self of the Earth. Satan continues his work, but he may already see new dawn rising, slowly but surely. In a way, Satan was redeemed through the work of Christ.

 The Process Church of the Final Judgment

The 1960's movement, The Process Church of the Final Judgment, is one that I find very fascinating, for they had intriguing theology intergrating Jehovah, Christ, Lucifer and Satan! For example, an  article called "The Unity of Christ and Satan" states the following:

"CHRIST said: Love your enemies.
CHRIST's Enemy was SATAN and SATAN's Enemy was CHRIST.
Through Love enmity is destroyed.
Through Love saint and sinner destroy the enmity between them.
Through Love CHRIST and SATAN have destroyed their enmity
and come together for the End;
CHRIST to Judge, SATAN to execute the Judgement.
The Judgement is WISDOM; the execution of the Judgement is LOVE."

 The Star of Azazel

Today I have found only one spiritual movement that answers to my gut feeling. While all other movements say you have to choose either left or right, this one is saying there is the third way including both. It is Finnish Society called the Star of Azazel -  presenting Theosophical world view with Satanism. They don't deny God and even revere Jesus.

 Aptest angel and the lovliest!
a God betrayed, to whom no anthems rise,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

Prince of exiles, exiled Prince who, wronged,
yet rises ever stronger from defeat,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

Omniscient ruler of the hidden realm,
patient healer of all human pain,

Satan, take pity on my sore distress! 

etc. (Les Litanies de Satan by Charles Baudelaire)

Read more:

A Lucid Look at Lucifer by Dr. Harrell Rhome 

Lucifer, the Eastern Crown Prince of Satanism

Paradise Lost by John Milton (yes, I have actually read it, from cover to cover!)

Some Light on Lucifer by Ina Belderis

Wikipedia: Lucifer and Prometheus