This I know in my Heart: My Experience of Gnosis

 This post came into being because I'm writing a series of posts, based on my old diaries from 1990's, for my Finnish blog, and I just reached the year 1995 when I turned 25 and joined the Gnostic Mystery School, Lectorium Rosicrucianum. This was a phase in my life I have only briefly mentioned before, yet it had enormous effect on me. That was the first time I ever have addressed this topic so straightforward in Finnish as well. 

See Wikipedia on Lectorium Rosicrucianum. Also: Lectorium Rosicrucianum: A Dutch Movement Becomes International (pdf), by Massimo Introvigne, Italian sociologist of religion. 

Symbol of Lectorium Rosicrucianum

[Addition 2/23/2025: I have read experiences of other ex-pupils, see Reddit: An Overview of Lectorium Rosicrucianum. Interestingly, LR apparently tolerates watching television nowadays. There are even hints that homosexuality would be no longer seen just as bad, or something that can be "cured" anyway. Also, I did not know that the founder's son, Henk Leene,  resigned with some pupils, and founded his own esoteric movement in 1970's (I read this on Wikipedia: see German page and use Google Translate) - Sivas Esoteric Community, which seemingly evolved to more open and free direction, emphasizing individuality instead of strong group mentality, gradually distancing itself from rosicrucianism, changing its terminology, and abandoning prohibitions and rules of life - and they did not claim they are the one and only true spiritual school! See "Henk and Mia Leene Library" (use Google Translate). There are also free downloadable documents available: Unmasking a sect: Dossier on the Lectorium Rosicrucianum.

I was lucky to get out so early: as hard as it was, how much harder it would have been in longer run. I'm more and more convinced that in LR nobody actually knows what they are doing - they just exist in their own bubble. Also, I'm convinced of validity of my way more than ever!] 

I first met Lectorium Rosicrucianum in the fall of 1994 at New Age fair in Helsinki, Finland. That is their target group, people who are interested in New Age and Esoterism etc., and already somewhat familiar with that imagery and vocabulary, even though LR makes its own concoction out of these ingredients. 

I ordered their introduction course, and right after that, instruction course of 12 letters. I also corresponded with their contact person in Finland, asking questions. I had sleepless nights while pondering, and felt like I was starting to understand and accept. New Age geek became a fanatical gnostic. Somehow it was a relief to give up many beliefs and customs I had cherished. It was earthmoving, shaking foundations of my life so far. I likened it to personal reformation: unimportant things were dropped off, the essential things grew brighter. I felt like I was looking at such heights, that I had never experienced anything so powerful and all-encompassing, not before nor after - to yearn for God like a drowning person needs air. Today it's very dim and distant. Now it's easy to see what it really was, as the glamour has faded long time ago. Of course I didn't think I was fanatical, or just blind believer: Nobody can see that themselves when it is current. My diary during that period is quite a rant: I was one of the few chosen ones who knew the truth and followed it. 

Center of Lectorium Rosicrucianum in Sweden (picture by me)

In January 1995 I traveled with other Finnish members to Sweden, our neighboring country, where LR has a center, for weekend conference, and I was installed as a preparatory pupil (I'm not sure if that is a name they use of this stage in English). After one year, I performed the sacrament of covenant and signed the act of covenant, thus becoming a trial pupil (again, this is only my translation), followed by affirmative installation at the temple in Stockholm, Sweden. After that, two years later, I was invited to become acknowledging pupil [note: "confessing" might be more appropriate], who will acknowledge the requirements of being a pupil by change of their way of life, their neutrality and gentleness, but then I was in situation that made me feel like I'm not able to do this, so I denied and remained just as outer member, until permanently resigning by the end of 1999. Those three stages of being a pupil are "outer School"; there is obviously more - inner School. All degrees are allegedly spiritual - each pupil will proceed in their own pace, only the goal is one and same. Everyone will demonstrate their progress like an open book, you can't hide or pretend. Each degree requires more powerful connection between a pupil and the gnostic force field, so that pupil will transform in process, that will culminate in full liberation, leaving this world for good and association with the Universal Brotherhood. 

Temple of Lectorium Rosicrucianum (picture found from internet)

In inexperience and naivety of my youth, I was very vulnerable, anything but mature, therefore easily influenced, that's how it began, and that also became an obstacle to me on this road, when I finally started to see life. 

Anyone who has ever belonged to movement demanding basically your whole life and complete devotion, whether it is the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons or whatever, will probably understand what I went through, even if they don't understand a word of this doctrine. I think even today this doctrine may sound strange for those who are familiar with esoterism as well, just like it was new to me back then. I rarely bump into Lectorium Rosicrucianum nowadays, unless I intentionally look for it, even though it has apparently grown a bit after those early days in Finland too (in Finland it was only officially founded in 1995: I was the fourth pupil here at that time). It stands apart from other movements, because it considers itself special and unique, and its doctrine certainly is not appealing to crowds, because it's so exclusive and demanding. 

My drawing from ´90s

LR makes a sharp distinction between this world - which includes the other side inhabited by the dead as well: we are trapped within a cycle of life and death - and the divine world we can reach only through the process of total transformation, "transfiguration", rebirth. This world is not the original creation of God, but only temporary emergency order after the fall. It is very gnostic distinction, but I don't know any other modern gnostic movement highlighting it that much. 

It was taught that there is so called "vacuum of Shamballa", a kind of force field, forming the other side of the School after death, where pupils advanced enough were taken in, and it was apart from "the reflection sphere", where ordinary people went after they died, protecting pupils from its deceitful forces. Ultimately, it is "the ark" that will carry them to the divine world when the time is full. 

Of course there was also apocalyptic vision: The year 2001 was mentioned in literature [allegedly based on "chronology" of the great pyramid of Giza! This is mentioned in "unmasking a sect"-dossier], but I was told it didn't mean the end of the world. There was allegedly time for the first phase of School's work up to that, but it was tentative, and as I was told, they were behind in plan: there were not enough pupils of 5. and 6. degrees, who were needed to carry the rest. The School was said to gather as large "harvest" as possible: then it was supposed to transform - the inner School would disappear from the world, the ark will take off. School will function, but those who later become pupils, can no longer move forward on the path because of changing radiation conditions. They can be the first ones who react positively in the next manifestation day. Since I was no longer a pupil, and not in contact with anyone for long time, I have no idea how it's going with that. But isn't it familiar and convenient concept: "we were not ready, we had to postpone the time." Who would want to join, if they could not make progress? And yet there is this feeling of urgency: "Hurry up, as long as there is time". "Manifestation day" refers to Manvantara in Hindu cosmology, very long cyclic period of time: according to LR, each manifestation day will end with destruction, earth is purified before mankind makes it uninhabitable, and everything will begin fresh and new, and it's easier to react positively to liberating gnostic impulse. I admit it's quite easy to fall for apocalyptic thinking while looking around this world today. 

Because I have always been interested in religions and spiritual movements, I also know a lot about the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, even though I don't believe a word, and I remember one time I was with a group of people and I told them some of those teachings, and we laughed. Afterwards I was ashamed. It is easy to laugh outside. I should know better. Peer support might do good: at least you get perspective for your own experiences. Even if the worldview and terminology may have been different, with everything I have heard or read, I have realized years later that my experience might not fundamentally differ from anyone's experience, who has "found God", so to speak. 

Jan van Rijckenborgh

At very early point it became clear to me that on this road acting on homosexual orientation was seen as an obstacle, and it didn't even surprise me; somehow it was intellectually acceptable to me, but not in my heart. Something that was not a problem to me, was brought in front of me as if it were a problem, from outside. I was told LR reacts to homosexuality "negatively, but not judgmentally". What does that even mean? You start to judge yourself anyway. The founder of LR, Jan van Rijckenborgh, wrote about subject very bluntly, calling homosexuality sickness, sin and abnormality, just like conservative Christians! Biblical arguments had nothing to do with it; reasons were "gnostic". It was said to affect all bodies of human, probably disturbing correct polarization: man was supposed to have positively polarized material body, negatively polarized etheric body, positively polarized desire body, and negatively polarized thinking ability (not a full-grown "body" yet); woman had vice versa. So co-operation of these two could not be realized and that would nullify possibility to walk this path. The key was a gradual neutralization, so that sexuality would move away from physical needs, they were dissolved. Ultimately, it was supposed to be the same for heterosexuals too. Reason for homosexuality, as I was told, was the past live as a monk or nun. I don't know if this makes any sense... or actually, I know it does not: obviously, I don't believe any of it now.  Anyway, "the cure" was firstly not to live by this "twisted inclination", and secondly, to orient oneself towards the path with full orientation, and walk it determinedly. 

First I confronted great turmoil within my soul as I saw the movie "Maurice" (yes, I made an exception and watched it on TV) and read a book by E.M. Forster it is based on. I became aware of my loneliness. However, I felt the literature of the Spiritual School (as LR is also called) was like a ray of light through stormy clouds. 

Maurice (1987), re-release trailer

I thought I was prepared to live alone, but suddenly I found myself in short but fervent event of life, accompanied by experiments with alcohol (I had never drunk before) and few unsatisfying one-night stands (I was inexperienced). Then I met my soon-to-be long-term partner. 

Conflict tore me in two directions. It was long and painful process. I even tried to deny all spirituality awhile and focus completely on mundane, but it didn't carry me far. 

It took me over 10 years before I could rationally admit even to myself, that I was in a narrow-minded cult (I'm fully aware how controversial term this is: I'm only using it for lack of a better word), and it was not just me who "failed to adjust". Everything was presented with a smile, explaining, that "everyone will personally see that this is true". Bollocks! From the very beginning, it is brainwashing: when the world is pictured dark and hopeless, and this is the only way to salvation, you better run - to opposite direction! 

My drawing from ´90s

We were told there are seven liberating spiritual schools operating in the world, but interestingly, LR was the only one working in public. Leaders of the School had supposedly met members of Chinese Taoist School. How convenient is that: "See, we are not the only one; you just will never hear about others, they work in secret." 

Pupil has to accept certain rules of life, like vegetarianism, avoiding tobacco and alcohol, and leather or fur clothing, and watching television. I didn't feel like I was giving up anything important, I already observed many of those rules. Gradually they will become aware of many other things they should avoid, like rock music. I learnt to appreciate classical music too, so I guess that was a good thing. However, already back then I found it a bit peculiar that LR in their publications uncritically cited claims that a band name KISS is an acronym for "Knights in Satan's Service", which I had heard when the waves of Satanic panic from the US reached the Nordic shores, and I thought it was stupid. Yet LR also criticized common Christianity. 

Perhaps surprisingly, meditation is warned against, and also many forms of alternative medicine, including all energy healing, like reiki, which I was practicing (and still am today, after pausing for those few years). Also, all churches and their rituals were warned against, and of course all other esoteric movements were wrong, or incomplete. Like, theosophy and anthroposophy were seen as preparatory stages before timely outpouring of the universal doctrine. This is very typical, I think: "they preceded us, but we are better: we have something more." 

According to their doctrine, people have two souls: active nature soul born of temporal world, and hidden divine soul. Like attracts like, and person who hasn't turned and purified one's being, meditates with their own consciousness and can only attract arbitrariness of energies of this nature order. How uplifting and beautiful it may be, it is very deceitful. Old methods were in order in specific time and place, but conditions have changed. I had a little crisis of faith, as their teachings were so radically divergent from the mainstream spirituality. 

My drawing from ´90s

As for the alternative medicine, I was told it's essential that it doesn't operate on occultism; or tie you even tighter with mundane cycle, furthering your petrification; or somehow apply the modern science of psychology. Even aromatherapy or color therapy were out of the question. Homeopathy was OK. Interestingly, I heard a story that C.G. Jung was originally supposed to establish a mystery school of this era, but he chose another path. It is well known fact that he was interested in gnosticism for awhile, and I still find his thoughts on matter valid. (See also: The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead.)

I loved the Gnostics in spite of everything, because they recognized the necessity of some further raisonnement, entirely absent in the Christian cosmos. - Carl Jung

Certainly I did adopt some thoughts I have kept until this day. Above all, the idea that "The Great White Brotherhood", or whatever you want to call it, if you believe in such a thing (and I don't take a stand on that), never operates personally, never appeals to your ego. There is no room for "messengers", or "master-this-and-that". I discuss this in my post, Western Esoterism vs. Buddhism. Also, general distrust for channeling has remained; this is something H.P. Blavatsky already spoke of (see "the danger and deception of channeling"). 

LR brought back to my life the fear of death I already once had left behind me, and I had to work on that for many years. It took me over ten years to get rid of its influence, even after I resigned. Still sometimes a thought has crossed my mind: "What if it is true?" Even though many details seem completely irrational. The more detailed doctrine, the more suspicious it is: "We have explanation for everything." A proof how deeply harmful teachings like this really are. Even after 30 years I felt anxiety reading my memoirs. I have never really dealt with that period, I only wanted to suppress all my feelings about it, replacing it by actively committing to a new church. I didn't resign because I stopped believing - not for a long time - but because I had met my late partner... and not because I had fallen in love with him, as one might expect. I was kind of taken by the circumstances, without will of my own, and surrendered to my fate. Yet it is wise to discern controlling movement from relationship, which may have not started with best and pure motives on my part (I briefly touch this in my post, New Revelations); I got rid of the former because of the latter, and it was a good thing, just took long time to understand it. 

My personal history may have a connection to a fact that all rules of life based on spiritual view are a big NO to me. In Nichiren Buddhism there are schools that don't find the five precepts of Buddha relevant. Only the practice (Namu Myoho Renge Kyo: see my other blog) is relevant. As an independent practitioner I gladly embrace this view, choosing the teachings that speak to me. This is one more reason why Nichiren Buddhism. It doesn't mean I go around doing bad things, you just don't have to tell me what not to do, and how to live my life. I don't miss absolute truths, or otherworldly rewards: my way of practicing spirituality keeps me down to earth; I don't need complicated explanations, only the simple and practical method that surpasses thinking and is free from feelings. 

"Don't be a dick!" This is a summary of my ethics, highlighted by the fact that I first saw this kind of poster in gay porn flick. It reminds me of the words by John Shore I have often quoted (and this is by memory): "Christians, whenever you say, 'I only speak the truth in love', what others hear is: 'I am a dick.' So, stop saying that... unless you are. In that case, continue, I guess." 

For me it is easier to accept the reiki principles, because they don't go to details of everyday life. I remind myself of them everyday. There are different versions, but I found one that appeals to me especially. According to reiki teacher Frans Stiene, Mikao Usui - the founder of reiki system - may have given various students slightly different versions to support their spiritual advancement and understanding, and this version he is said to have taught his buddhist students, as he was buddhist himself (I have to partially translate from Stiene's book published in Finnish, couldn't find this exact version on his webpage): 

Do not anger, for anger is an illusion
Do not worry, for fear is a distraction
Be true to your way and your true self
Show compassion to yourself and others
For this is the foundation of the Buddha nature

Getting angry and worrying are exactly two features that mostly bother me about myself: I let other people effect me so that I get angry, or I worry about things that haven't happened and I only imagine. Both shake my balance: I don't stay calm within myself, or present in the moment. And obviously compassion is a challenge I have been struggling with. It could be that I don't even love myself as much as I used to think I do. But needless to say: being true to my way and my true self is what my life is all about! 

Basically, people can do whatever they want with their lives, unless it is illegal, and it hardly takes anything meaningful away from you, if you don't watch television or drink alcohol or eat meat... One can only question that it is required: it is another matter if it is your choice from the very beginning. And if you can obey the rules you have chosen to obey, that doesn't make you a better person. It is completely different thing when we step into personal and intimate area of sexuality, and you are told you are wrong kind of man or woman, and therefore not allowed to love. And when you believe it and start to restrain yourself and your life - your life force... then we cross such a tremendous human line, that it has to be strictly condemned! 

It is good to understand, that just like Christianity has been divided to various sects and denominations, with very large differences on views and practices, and some of them even think they represent the one and only true Christianity, same goes with gnosticism too. As I used to be Christian myself, I sometimes cited a phrase, "There are as many ways to be Christian, as there are Christians." Likewise, Victor White, an English Dominican Priest who corresponded and collaborated with C.G. Jung, said: "There were almost as many gnoses as there were people who called themselves gnostics or who have been called gnostics by later historians." 

Despite of my experience in one modern gnostic movement, I did not lose my interest in gnosticism in general. After strictness of Lectorium Rosicrucianum, I was just pleased with more liberal interpretation of it. Some of these ideas include: Gnostics emphasized primality of immediate experience. Gnostic can approve in faith what others have said only temporarily, until they have found their own path. Gnosticism was a movement of spirit without absolute boundaries. True gnosis is mystical knowledge and experience one can reach through inner intuitive ways, which transcends outer shape of reality. 

LR used a word "Gnosis" in varying nuances, as I understood it: it might refer to God, Static Kingdom of God, Radiation Force, Christ Hierarchy... all these names were used as equivalent. They don't really indicate what I understand by Gnosis today: "thinking with a heart". 

In Finland we have nowadays one modern gnostic movement of our own, founded in Finland in 2009 and working in Finland only: The Gnostic Society of Finland. There is only brief English introduction: 

The purpose of the Society is

• to nurture the gnostic spiritual heritage,
• to spread the knowledge of Gnosticism,
• to promote gnostic research and teaching activities,
• to create conditions for the practice of gnostic spirituality,
• to strengthen the spiritual connection and sense of community among its members,
• to strengthen the spiritual connection and sense of community of its members,
• to guide its members to inner integrity, love of neighbor and tolerance and
• to act as a link for those interested in Gnosticism.

The activities of the Society include

• public lectures,
• discussion sessions,
• reading groups and study groups,
• mass services and devotional services,
• the Mystery School lectures,
• the esoteric Gnostic Rite,
• Correspondence School and
• self-study materials.

I'm pleased that it seems more like blanket spirituality, not focused on Christian gnosis, like so many modern gnostics. It's about universal message of love, that's how I get it. And they do bless the union of same-sex couples! I would love to take part in their gnostic Mass, but it is held only in Helsinki - not impossible, but requires travelling. 

I may have considered myself a Christian already as a member of LR, which has been described as "christo-centric mystery school", but they taught the Gospels would be true whether Jesus lived or not, because they presented the path everyone must walk by themselves. This was not far from teachings of Pekka Ervast (see the link lists of this blog), Finnish theosophist and rosicrucian, who was my spiritual mentor before LR and also after. In his book, The Esoteric School of Jesus, he refers to different theories in regard to Jesus Christ. Then he writes: 

We must first ask what the words mean. "Christ" is not a noun nor pronoun, which would be suitable, as such, as a name for a person but an adjective which means "anointed", in Hebrew - Masshiah, Messiah. The Jews held - as did Christians later on - that the Messiah was a certain person, and Jesus denies this conception of "anointed" as a form of person in the first of above mentioned excerpts from the Bible. [Matthew 22:41-46]...

Looking at it from the spiritual point of view, there is only one important thing, and this is that a human being should know that he is the son of God. Because his own "I", his inner soul, his true self is not of the material world but is of God...

All these human Egos, of which every human being has one, are therefore born of God, and when the "I" born of God has become conscious, of its own divine descent, aware of the fact that he is the son of God, then he is stepped into the "anointed" life, then he is "Christ" or "anointed"...

So, when I was exploring The Christian Community, esoteric christian church based on Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy, it was hard for me to get hold of idea that God had become man and walked this earth, idea so fundamental to mainstream Christianity, but also part of Steiner's Christology, often stigmatised heretical [see in this blog, A.P. Shepherd: Spiritual Science and the Christian Churches]: yet it was through that I came to basic Christian views on incarnation, crucifixion as utter deed of redemption, and resurrection. In the beginning it was very difficult, I was suspicious about many things I saw or heard: it was so different. But I kept attending services on regular basis, and came to love my church because I loved Christ who gave himself to me through bread and wine. I was touched by the image of Beloved Disciple, who leans on his master's chest, listening to his heartbeats, and I was able to identify with him. Obviously, that was very emotional attitude. I desperately wanted to believe! The Christian Community was my lifeline that saved me from spiritual death! For me, name of Rudolf Steiner was a guarantee there must be something deeper here, and of course the key question to me was a position on homosexuality: today the Christian Community blesses the union of same-sex couples. 

The Christian Community does not consider itself the one and only true church, but I brought this attitude with me and took everything I heard or read for granted, before I started to think for myself. But of course I had to settle first. Over 10 years later, I had become such an independent thinker, I was already beginning to move further away - around that time I came into the reckoning with my past - when it really hit me hard that not all my thoughts were accepted, and I was even attacked [see my post, Disillusioned - Enlightened]. When I finally reached the dead end on that path as well, I was coming closer to my gnostic roots, first as Luciferian, then as Buddhist. ( See previous post, "My visit on the 'Dark Side'") I need to add that today I'm at ease with the Christian Community, still a member officially, not attending much, but I do appreciate them. I just don't believe in Christianity anymore (and hardly in humanity either; it's a constant struggle). 

It is interesting that regardless how large and mainstream Nichiren Buddhism is in Japan, it is so original that it is sometimes criticized and looked suspiciously by members of other schools of Buddhism. When I was still christian, I found this webpage called Ways of Christ, and liked the vast variety of information it provides: there are references to numerous sources. Concerning Buddhism, it says: "Among the Buddhist schools of thought, the teachings of Nichiren could appear as a bridge." For full context, read the entire page. Certainly for me it has been a natural progress: I didn't find Nichiren Buddhism, it sort of found me and it was like coming home. As I studied Nichiren Buddhism, I noticed I was already thinking along those lines, and devotional and ceremonial aspect was very much like what I did as Christian on my own... I have kept everything on my long journey I still treasure today. 

In my experience, in Lectorium Rosicrucianum members just complied with expectations and rules, only selected information was given about leadership, structure was hierarchical, and leaders, higher ranked pupils, were considered spiritually more advanced supermen! Instead of individual diversity of humanity members were expected to "lose themselves" and form a "group unity": could it sound more cult-like? In the Christian Community there was freedom of thought... and honestly, a lot of conflicts between people, also difficulties in collaboration among priesthood, and even I couldn't avoid that. Yet I think it was just a problem of imperfect people, as we all are, who were given this kind of freedom, a natural side effect and byproduct of such freedom. (But obviously this freedom had its limits as well... and that was narrow-mindedness of some people!) 

A friend once got me almost annoyed when we messaged, discussing matters of faith, as he said he has experienced (knows) that God (and Jesus and Christ) exist... until I payed attention to a word "experienced": If you claim to know something like that, it seems arrogant and questions other people's experience that can be just as strong, but led to different conclusions. But if "knowing" is understood as Gnosis, inner personal and intuitive knowledge, it can be - and it has to be - subjective (as many gnoses as there are gnostics): It doesn't make your experience merely imaginative, you only have clothed pure experience with definite thoughtform. 

Personally I have discovered how similar atmosphere there seems to be between the Lotus Sutra, that Nichiren Buddhism highly values, and the Gnostic Gospels. Like someone said: Mahayana Sutras picture the magical world full of archetypal figures living beyond historical time and space. Sutras appeal to spiritual imagination. They pursue to expand and work imagination through the methods of visionary drama. 

Or as Sangharakshita, British Buddhist teacher, put it (my own translation from Finnish, since I haven't found the original text):

"Generally, presentations of Buddhism in the west emphasize the rational side, or even give the impression that Buddhism is solely rational. We are told about Buddhist thought and philosophy, Buddhist metaphysics, psychology, and logic, and sometimes all that feels very dry and academic. However, another side represented by myths, symbols, and imagination, emotions, and vision, is not any less important, and for many people it is perhaps even more important. This is why we must absorb the writings, appealing to our emotions, like parables, myths, and symbols of Mahayana, included in the White Lotus Sutra." 

The Hymn of the Pearl in the Acts of Thomas shares a lot in common with the Parable of the Jewel in the Robe in the Lotus Sutra. The story is different of course, but it is penetrated by the sense of familiarity. The idea is undoubtedly same: There is something more, something precious, within a man, but it is easily forgotten or ignored in the midst of this world. 

The scientific study on Gnosticism is interesting enough, without any esoteric theories. See, for example, Gnosticism and "the Gnostics" (pdf) by Ismo Dunderberg, professor at University of Helsinki. 

Also, you may think this is not related issue, but I see connection: I highly recommend a book by Finnish physicist (and reiki master!), Johanna Blomqvist: Hyperreality - Beyond the horizon where physics meets consciousness. It was a revelation. I had missed a popular writing on quantum physics, and here I found it! This book came to me in right time: it confirmed conclusions I had come to, in my own ways. It was kind of easy to understand, almost obvious to me. It suits well with eastern ideas, I think. Everything is energy, everything is interconnected. Separation and opposition are virtual or surface. Spirit and matter are not opposites to each other, apart from each other. 

Reality is subjective, therefore truth is also subjective. It is not about opinions, but experience. "Opposite of correct statement is false statement, but opposite of correct truth can be another correct truth", as physicist Niels Bohr has said (in my translation). Everyone of us forms our own idea of reality, more or less aware of what this idea is based on. In the end we are alone, each one depending on our own thinking, because we have to choose whose view, whose teaching we trust. It's easy to think our own mind is the right one, because each of us has experience only about the process that led to our own values and view of reality. 

Reality is what we think is real. What we think is real, is what we believe in. What we believe in, defines what we think is real. What we think is real, is our reality. - Physicist David Bohm

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. 

SEX, LOVE, MARRIAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

Peter Tatchell: Porn Can Be Good For You.

Supernatural Life

REIKI
I am a Reiki practisener; I completed the second degree in Usui System of Natural Healing (Usui Shiki Ryoho) already in 1994. Before that I read a book about healing and tested its teachings with a friend of mine - with powerful results. On Reiki courses I also had impressive experiences of healing energy. However, I gave up Reiki for several years while being a member of Lectorium Rosicrucianum: Healing, among other things, was seen harmful.
When I started again, I immadiately felt like being in a "flow of life". In fact, when channelling Reiki, I get the same blessed feeling as I have while praying! That is the most important proof that I'm in touch with God! When I pray I love God with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my mind and with all my strenght - just reflecting His love towards me back to Him.
I think Reiki is pure, divine love flowing through me. My hands are the hands of Christ. Reiki is unique laying on of hands method, because you can do it to yourself, too. I think that's the most significant aspect of Reiki: To treat yourself is to love yourself; love begins at home before it can expand to neighbors, and the source of all Love is God who first has loved us.
I always start my Reiki sessions with prayer, "Your Will, Lord, not mine" - in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, making the sign of the cross (head, heart, hands - through which Reiki flows). I also use Reiki to bless food. As a christian it has been good to find christian Reiki sites on the Web and see that I'm not alone.
As a Reiki practisoner I'm puritanist: Usui Shiki Ryoho is enough for me. Since 1994 it seems to me that Reiki field has "gone wild": new sub-categories of Reiki have appeared abundantly. Would you like to receive distant Reiki? I just need your name and location.

PRAYER
For years I've had a regular time of the day for prayer, a home altar, and certain rituals: I light a candle and incense sticks, and read "Meditative Prayers for today" by Adam Bittleston, English priest of The Christian Community. I think about my friends, family etc. Finally I say the Lord's Prayer aloud. This is my way. Prayer is such a personal matter that each individual must create his own methods. Of course all those forms are basically unnecessary, but if they help to create the right atmosphere, why not? Steady time and place increase the power of prayer - it's like building an invisible Temple day by day. Prayer is answered immadiately by the Presence of Christ. This is the only answer I'm expecting. We must pray "in spirit and truth" - by the power of Spirit and understanding the truth.
Intercessory prayer is the way to apply the Golden Rule in practise: Prayer for another person (even an enemy) is the deed of love. Neighbourly love is not a feeling - you don't need to like everybody - it is impersonal good will expressed in action. For me that has been a good lesson to learn. Do you need a prayer?

MEDITATION
I used to meditate every morning and every evening - even for an hour! Nowadays I miss meditation but haven't found enough will power to do it on daily basis. 15 minutes a day would be enough. When you pray you talk to God, when you meditate you listen to God. You talk to God above and listen to God within.

WORSHIP
Weekly Mass is the central point of my life. From Sunday morning this stream of the Vital Light-Blood of Christ's Radiant Love carries me along to my everyday life. It is the beating heart of the sacramental life of the community, from the heart of the Altar, from the heart of Christ. The Aim of the Service is to change the world. It happens through people who receive the transformed elements of bread and wine. I live along the Service and it is living in me: I am in Christ and Christ is in me.
We were born of God but God gave us the free will and in freedom we have walked a long way alienating from our Origin. Freely we must also turn to Him again and give ourselves to Him. This is our sacrifice.
The Influence of the Mass continues during the week as the Supersubstantial Bread in the Sacrament of the Lord's Prayer, which is also said in The Mass. Blessing received in both cases is based on the same fact of the Real Presence of Christ. In Communion He's just more present because He becomes flesh and blood in Bread and Wine and once consumed, the food becomes one essence with an eater.
Thus Christ Jesus has truly joined human race by blood bond and entered down to the very core of earth itself. He is our older Brother, Higher Self of the earth, working mystically in each human soul and cosmically in the universe.
No matter what one may think about Opus Dei and its founder, Josemaría Escrivá, but he has said some wise words: "'Not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God', said our Lord. Bread and word! Host and prayer. Otherwise, you will not live a supernatural life."