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

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

Esoterism in Finland

My drawing from the 1990's

I came across this video, Finnish Theosophist and Rosicrucian Antti Savinainen (who has Ph.D. in physics) is being interviewed by Quest Magazine editor Richard Smoley from American Theosophical Society. Topics include Pekka Ervast, his form of esoteric Christianity, and spiritual interpretation of  Kalevala. 

My link lists on the sidebar contain Pekka Ervast and Kalevala, for those who want to find out more. Also, I have personally translated many years ago some brief writings by Pekka Ervast for this blog:

Pekka Ervast: The Prayer of Jesus

Pekka Ervast: Rosy Cross as a Symbol

Pekka Ervast: No Religion is Higher than Truth

Pekka Ervast: Small Rosy Cross Catechism

Furthermore, I have collected some writings using his ideas: 

Reflections on the Problem of Evil according to Pekka Ervast

Independence Day

The Birth of Christ; Some indications from Pekka Ervast

Have Faith!

Hell

Life after Death

Exploring the Rich Esoteric Heritage of Finland (1 hr)

Earlier, I have shared another video: "Document on Finnish Esoteric Organizations." 

And after that, I published a critical article called, "Western Esoterism vs. Buddhism."

I could conclude that the benefit of Theosophical movement was to bring Eastern philosophy for wider audience in the West. Yet its downside was to confuse the ideas of Buddhism and Hinduism, and claim that "these two mean the same." It is not true. 

Just like my (esoteric) Christian friend - the one I wrote about in previous post - recently told me, he had heard a young Rosicrucian say that morals is the one thing uniting the world religions. However, it doesn't matter what someone said, everyone has their own perspective, and morals is precisely the one thing that separates me and my friend. It's never been the point for me. I don't think it's even necessary to find uniting factors in religions. It is simply humanity that unites us, and a religion in itself is very human thing. 

See also: Seekers of the New Research Project

Document on Finnish Esoteric Organizations

 Towards the Light - Tales of Finnish Occultism and Esotericism

A document focusing on interviews with Finnish Esoteric organisations. Featured are Gnostic Society, Rosy Cross, Esko Jalkanen – Nature’s Powers Trust, Star of Azazel, Theosophical Society and Christosophia Supporters’ Association. The document is divided to four parts with different themes: The Societies, The Teachings, The Human Being and The Future. The document is subtitled in English.

Realized by Antti Kaipainen and Marko Forsten. 41:49 min. June 30 2021.

Obviously, it's not very deep, only the very basics, and as such, nothing new to me. Frankly, I'm confused how come the Theosophical Society is included among these groups. They are international, not particularly Finnish. However, three out of five other organizations are directly involved with Theosophical world view, and they readily admit it; undoubtedly remaining two organizations are influenced by Theosophy as well, simply because it has had such a wide influence on Western Esoterism. 

Pekka Ervast

On my link list on the sidebar, you can find Pekka Ervast, a man who is said to have brought Theosophy to Finland in Finnish language, and who later founded the Finnish Rosicrucian Order, Rosy Cross. He was my spiritual mentor for many years. His books were revelation to me, combining head and heart, solving contradictions in Church Dogma. It was through his work that I found the version of Christianity I could approve of. 

Obviously, I also know Christosophy, a word Pekka Ervast first used in his books. It's a fact that without Pekka Ervast, Finnish Esoterism would miss a lot. However, I have never understood the point of this movement, started by Ervast's co-worker J.R. Hannula after his death. They seem to emphasize Ervast's role to the extreme, explaining how Buddha expressed Logos as Reason and the Holy Spirit; Jesus expressed Logos as Love and the Son; Pekka Ervast supposedly expressed Logos as Good Will and the Father, and he declared the new religion based on the Sermon on the Mount, which according to Ervast was the most essential teaching of Jesus. 

I became familiar with the Star of Azazel on my Luciferian period - see my previous post. They are heavily based on Theosophy too. Since Blavatsky, Theosophy has always reinterpreted the symbolism of Lucifer/Satan, Star of Azazel just makes it their main doctrine. 

Esko Jalkanen - Nature's Powers Trust (link to English pdf file) I don't know personally; I have a friend who has received spiritual help from them and was happy about it. 

Gnostic Society (unfortunately, there seems to be no English pages) is interesting to me. Among other things, they conduct equal weddings for same-sex couples too. I would like to visit their Gnostic Mass, which is not Christian - a fact that I as non-Christian gladly welcome (since there are also many Gnostic Christian Churches around the world, you know), but they are held only in Helsinki (I live in Tampere, and go to Helsinki less than once a year). 

This document missed two particularly Finnish organizations based on Theosophy: 

Ihmisyyden Tunnustajat ("Confessors of Humanity"), a commune, where I visited in the 90's and bought my first books by Pekka Ervast. For a while I even dreamed of living there myself, but that was a passing phase and it soon became clear it was not for me. I read the founder (now deceased), who used to be involved in Christosophy until her claimed communications with the Masters of Wisdom were  rejected, was considered a reincarnation of Helena Blavatsky, and that really bothered me; I met her, and she didn't impress me much. Yet the fact that this commune is really long-lasting, seems to prove there is something about it that is working. They are very strictly focused on one ideal - maybe it is their strength, but to me it seems too narrow. 

Via-Akatemia ("Via Academy"; no English!): They say they teach Rajayoga, or "thought yoga", through their correspondence course, logical positive thinking, through which it is possible to attain inner peace and happiness, and expanding of the consciousness and connection to Higher Self by repeating positive phrases or mantras. I have read old magazines from the 70's, when this organization seemed to be a little controversial; nowadays they have renewed their image (since both of the original founders have passed away) and become quite presentable. One of the founders also said she was a  reincarnation of Helena Blavatsky: how many are they? (Globally there have been many more.) Their background was on Theosophical Society, Rosy Cross and Christosophy, and initiative for their work allegedly came from the Adepts of White Brotherhood, of course. 

Also worth a mention is a mystical artist, a rosicrucian and contemporary of Pekka Ervast, who didn't start her own movement, even though she supposedly was in contact with the Masters: Aleksandra Ionowa. 

See also:

Theosophically inspired movements in Finland by Kennet Granholm

In the Middle of Helsinki there is a Temple of secret information known to few - the crowd gathering in the basement does not make a large number of its doctrines that exude mysticism

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