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. 

THE YEAR OF TRIBULATION

It's almost a year since my heart surgery, and yet I haven't written about it as I was planning to do... However, the world has gone crazy, and right now it's not on top of my "to-do" list. Coronavirus pandemic is raging among us, and my heart condition makes me part of the risk group. 

Now that I'm writing this, only 5 people have died in Finland so far. Finland has taken hard measures, schools were mostly closed, gatherings restricted, borders were closed, and southern part of the country, where the most infections have been found,  is being isolated from the rest of the country (luckily, that's not where I live), and we all are practicing "social distancing", and strict hygiene, as we are told to do. 

Just like in the United States, we have witnessed people hoarding food and toilet paper, and sanitizers are mainly sold out everywhere. 

I am in "socially critical profession", as a cleaner. Nowadays it's disinfection everywhere. Yet my employer also needs to lay off temporarily many employees, because so many clients have to close their businesses. 

One well-meaning friend texted me I should stay at home, but that's not realistic, as long as it's not an order from authorities, and I still have a job to go to, unlike so many others. Besides, at work I feel much safer than going to supermarket. Now it's time to use online shopping and home delivery. Many clients do remote work anyway, and my work is more important than ever before! I just do my best, following the instructions. Of course your health should be first priority, before livelihood, but I don't see it as an option to stay away from work on my own. 

Another friend commented that "this might be an updated Black Death; Nature is eliminating the weak." But it's not about the weak, it's about the human race as a whole. It's not very encouraging, but can't help thinking the Nature is trying to get rid off the vermins of the planet. 

Some people seem to think, "I am young and healthy, if I get sick, it's going to be mild; the weak will die, what can you do? It's not my concern." 

It's not guaranteed that young and healthy person would not get a serious illness and even die. And yes, we all die sooner or later, but even I don't want to die just yet. 

Same friend continued that "here in Finland we have different conditions, which will affect the virus, cleaner air, and no pollution like in China. Virus is transforming all the time..." What a load of crap! That has nothing to do with scientific facts! 

Stop repeating the mantra, "Most people get just slightly sick"! MOST PEOPLE. If you are careless for your own health, you are careless for other people's health as well, and possibly even for their lives! That's extreme selfishness! How is it so hard to understand? 

There is no need to panic, as long as you do all you can, but neither one should be lulled to false sense of security. We just don't know yet. It will take months in any case. 

 A thought that is giving me comfort at these times, instead of being worried of my own well-being all the time, is that I am not alone, this is not about me, I'm not any special: we are all in the same situation together! Our president Sauli Niinistö said, we should keep a physical distance, but take a spiritual closeness. 

As an introvert, it's not hard for me to stay away from people, it's just my life. Obviously, it's getting even more concrete forms when you have to be careful of casual contacts while going outside. With my husband I sometimes go for a walk late in the night. 

This too will pass, but hopefully we learn something, and prepare better. 

For study and pondering:

A little bit of Anthroposophical perspective... From a lecture Rudolf Steiner gave in 1914:

"Let me illustrate this with an obvious example. As we know, people today are haunted by a fear we can compare with the medieval fear of ghosts. It is the fear of germs. Objectively, both states of fear are the same. Both fit their respective age: People of the Middle Ages held a certain belief in the spiritual world; therefore quite naturally they had a fear of spiritual beings. The modern age has lost this belief in the spiritual world; it believes in material things. It therefore has a fear of material beings, be they ever so small. Objectively speaking, the greatest difference we might find between the two periods is that ghosts are at any rate sizable and respectable. The tiny germs, on the other hand, are nothing much to write home about as far as frightening people is concerned. Now of course I do not mean to imply by this that we should encourage germs, and that it is good to have as many as possible. That is certainly not the implication. Still, germs certainly exist and ghosts existed also, especially as far as those people who held a real belief in the spiritual world are concerned. Thus, they do not even differ in terms of reality.However, the important point we want to make today is that germs can become dangerous only if they are allowed to flourish. Germs should not be allowed to flourish. Even materialists will agree with this statement, but they will no longer agree with us if we proceed further and, from the standpoint of proper spiritual science, speak about the most favorable conditions for germs. Germs flourish most intensively when we take nothing but materialistic thoughts into sleep with us. There is no better way to encourage them to flourish than to enter sleep with only materialistic ideas, and then to work from the spiritual world with the ego and the astral body on those organs that are not part of the blood and the nervous system. The only other method that is just as good is to live in the center of an epidemic or endemic illness and to think of nothing but the sickness all around, filled only with a fear of getting sick. That would be equally effective. If fear of the illness is the only thing created in such a place and one goes to sleep at night with that thought, it produces afterimages, Imaginations impregnated with fear. That is a good method of cultivating and nurturing germs. If this fear can be reduced even a little by, for example, active love and, while tending the sick, forgetting for a time that one might also be infected, the conditions are less favorable for the germs."

Goetheanum published following article by Georg Soldner: The Corona Virus.

Then from Buddhist perspective, Take a Mindful approach to Coronavirus by Christiane Wolf,

and Tricycle: Practicing in a Pandemic.

I am Nichiren Buddhist, but not part of any sect. However, following passage from the New Human Revolution by president Daisaku Ikeda of Soka Gakkai International, was encouraging to me:

The important thing is what you do from now. Are you going to be discouraged and allow yourselves to fall into despair? Or will you regard this as an opportunity to show actual proof of your faith and rise up again courageously, determined not to be beaten?Your inner resolve is what decides your happiness or unhappiness. Over the course of our lives, we are bound to face all kinds of adversity, not only natural disasters but things like bankruptcy, unemployment, illness, accidents and the deaths of loved ones. No life is ever perfectly smooth. In fact, life is an endless series of trials and tribulations, and it would be no exaggeration to say that facing difficulties is indeed what life is about. The question, then is, How do we remain unbeaten by these trials and adorn our lives with victory? Buddhism teaches the concept of transforming poison into medicine. According to this principle, we can change even the worst circumstances into benefit and happiness through faith. We need to be utterly confident of this… Unhappiness is not caused by adverse circumstances; it is caused by our own despair and negativityAnother important thing is to realize that the suffering you are experiencing now has a profound significance. If all of you who have been adversely affected by this natural disaster are able to splendidly rebuild your lives, you have turned poison into medicine and demonstrated the greatness of Nichiren Buddhism to society. That is the purpose of the struggle you are now encountering.

Also the letter by Nichiren Shonin living in solitude, while great plague was raging in Japan in 1279, is somehow encouraging to me; There is nothing new under the sky! He had to go through it in those days, when it was harder in many ways, and yet remained strong in spirit, so why wouldn't I. He was alone, but got help from his disciples - there's an example for all of us. 

For spiritual support at your own home: Silent Unity Virtual Prayer Vigil. You enter beautiful virtual chapel, with simple piano melody playing; It may help to create a mood to quiet down. The rest is up to you, and your innermost being, which can't be artificially substituted from outside. It's all the same if you were in Church.

See also: How to meditate?

Now it's a good time to look for online resources, books, movies, games, exercises, meditations, whatever. You can also interact with other people online. Personally, I don't necessarily miss any kind of interaction, besides my husband of course, but I understand more extroverted people may really undergo a hard time right now. 

Some of my favorite memes so far:

CHANGES

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

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

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

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

My own personal Jesus

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

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

SPIRITUAL IMPULSES INFLUENCING ME

Marko; aura photo 1993

Since Cynthia Kiteley Lee - whom I have honor to know - listed her spiritual paths on Mystical Order of the White Rose Newsletter, October 2013, I started to think is it even possible for me to make a simlar list of all major spiritual impulses that influece me. First I tried to make some sort of chart, but it became too messy and hard to read. Problem is, of course, that we hardly even know everything that has had impact on us, so I can only list things that I know for sure, and choose those that have had more than random and passing effect.

I do this because it is interesting to me; not that it has any value to you. Then again, how could I possibly know. I list religions, movements, and characters that stand out, and try to say few words about each one.

Religions

• Christianity; isn't it obvious. If I had been raised in Islamic country, it would be Islam. Once I thought Christianity is all the same, but it's not. If you say you're Christian, you don't really say anything about yourself - there are as many ways to be Christian as there are Christians.
• Judaism; when I have studied Jewish roots of Christianity - for instance, Hebrew Bible in historical critical light - I have come to appreciate Judaism more and more for the sake of itself. It is not just some preceding phase to Christianity. Jesus was Jew til the end of his life, and never meant to start a new religion. I practice Seder meal in Christian context every year, and I wear Tallit when I pray, and I use Psalms as prayers - which is common practice for both Jewish and Christian - as did Jesus with his disciples. Kabbalah is interesting, but rather unfamiliar to me, and seems very complicated and intellectual. Maybe someday...
• Buddhism; just as diverse as Christianity: there are many schools, some even more or less emphasize salvation through faith. I do like Tibetan Buddhism and respect Dalai Lama, but I'm more into Theravada forms (except for Zen, which is Mahayana, and the most interesting form of Buddhism to me).
• Hinduism; even if common folks may actually believe in many gods and goddesses, philosophy of Hinduism is very profound; the idea of Brahman, the Absolute, the one and only beyond all manifestation, is close to ideas of Philo of Alexandria, contemporary of Jesus, who influenced on developing Christian thought more than his own Jewish people. I celebrate Puja ritual every night, with Christian imagery. 
• Neopaganism; I was first interested in Wicca when I was in my 20's. Nowadays I'm interested in all aspects of neopaganism.

I don't mention Islam here; I have read many books on Islam, and I still don't get hold of it. I do appreciate Sufism, though, but I only know it theoretically.

Within Christianity

• Lutheranism; I was born in Lutheran country and baptised Lutheran. That's part of the reason why I grew alienated from it. Only much later I have actually read what Martin Luther thought, and it was an eye-opener. However, Lutheranism after Luther is something else anyway.
• Orthodox Christianity; after my break up with Lutheranism, it was Orthodox Christianity that made me approach Christianity again - through experience of the Divine Liturgy alone, not by intellect. The Orthodox Church is less dogmatic than Roman Catholic church, and they have preserved very old tradition.
• Catholicism; maybe it's because I was born in Lutheran country that I find Catholicism fascinating in many ways - certainly not because of its dogmatism or Papacy, but because of rich current of Mysticism that always has lived underneath all that. I've had Rosary for years!
• Quakerism; probably the most radical form of reformation. I have been to quaker meetings, and read about their history. Silence is something I can understand.  I like their stand against war. One must respect such Faith.
• Knights Templar; many esoteric movements claim knights templar as their own. It may be hard to get true information. Even though they were both warriors and monks, and that may seem contradictory, there is something deeply fascinating about them. Somebody once told me, I was Knight Templar in previous life. I honor them as martyrs.
• Catharism; since I was a pupil in Lectorium Rosicrucianum, which sees itself as spiritual heir to Cathars, I was intrigued by them as well. I was even obsessed by the idea to go for  pilgrimage to Languedoc, France. I admire their strong faith and endurance even through the fire and death. I later came to know French person living in Finland, who actually was Cathar, but I must say he didn't make a good impression: fasting at the cost of your health is stupid. At least in Lectorium Rosicrucianum the fast was considered spiritual fasting from this world.
• Esoteric Christianity; many movements I have been involved with, represent Esoteric Christianity. Religion always has its esoteric core and exoteric form.

Other spiritual impulses

•  Theosophy; my awakening to spiritual quest in my 20's first occured through Theosophy. I have translated many theosophical articles for my Finnish blog, but it's noteworthy they originate from other Theosophical societies than the one with headquaters in Adyar, the only one represented in Finland. I don't think much of Annie Besant, and I don't consider C.W. Leadbeater a trustworthy clairvoyant; besides, he was a pedophile - facts are heavy. 
• Anthroposophy; I have long been indirectly doing with Anthroposophy. First I thought it is more modern and more suitable for Western mind than Theosophy, but I have come to see how fanatical and dogmatic Anthroposophists can be. I guess it's no wonder because Anthroposophy is all about Rudolf Steiner, and has absorbed truths of one religion - Christianity - as part of itself.
• Rosicrucianism; there are many forms of rosicrucianism, many movements use this name. Symbol of Rosy Cross is dear to me. Some say Christian Rozenkreuz was an actual person, but I was taught and still believe that he is symbolic figure. After all, his name means "Christian Rosy-Cross"!
• Gnosticism; I was Gnostic once, and what was said above, goes with gnosticism as well. Movements that claim to be Gnostic, are very different from one another. Lectorium Rosicrucianum represents pure form of gnosticism; this world is seen as evil and corrupt, and we must rise away from it. In a way, "once gnostic, always gnostic"; certain ideas are current in my life that could be considered "gnostic", mostly freedom and individuality in Spirit that I have read were related to original Christian Gnosticism in the beginning of Christian Era.
• Satanism; probably the most surprising revelation on this list. But I will return to this topic later. Anyway, there is nothing frightening about satanism to me. I don't even believe in personal evil - nor absolute evil. In Finland there is one umbrella association for "laveyan satanists" and neopagans, like Wiccans!
• Zen; to me, it is mostly meditation - being present here and now. That has become important part of my daily life. Sometimes I go to Zendo, where I learned this method, but I don't want to go to Retreats; it's just too much.
• Unitarian Universalism; I was Unitarian Universalist early in my life, and I didn't know it myself. I didn't practice any particular religion, but I did believe in God and prayed. Today, Belief System Selector quiz of SelectSmart.com told me I'm 100% Unitarian Universalist! It makes sense too. In a way I have completed the full circle in my life.

Personalities

•  Jesus of Nazareth; so self-evident I almost didn't mention it. Today I want to know Jesus the Teacher - Jesus' teachings instead of teachings about Jesus (and that excludes St. Paul too!). His voice is clear in the Gospels. It's amazing to see how only very few ever have followed in his footsteps - many claim to do that, but try to explain his demanding words away. Of course his overall character is dear to me too, and why not use it as central point of my devotion. It's hard to worship abstract concept of God, without something concrete to take hold of.
• Mary Magdalene; it's not by chance I chose her as "Patroness" of my online ministry, now known as "Mystical Order of the White Rose - Scandinavian Skete of Mary Magdalene." Reasons for this are explained on website. I celebrate her feast day on July 22, by baking madeleines and conducting a short ritual of anointing with Spikenard oil.
• John the Evangelist; he's the Patron of above-mentioned Work. I still like to believe he - "the beloved disciple" - is the actual author of the fourth Gospel, and also of the epistles attributed to him, and of the Book of Revelation. And as Rudolf Steiner taught, it makes sense to me to think he was no one less than Lazarus raised from the dead. I have sometimes identified myself with the Beloved Disciple, who leaned against Jesus' chest at the meal, listening to his heart beats.
• Gautama Buddha; there is no doubt he was historical figure, and he was a man, not god, who realised the truth and made it the way to be followed in life. Unlike followers of Jesus, his followers have mostly maintained his teachings. I have a small statue of Buddha on my home altar below the picture of Jesus.
• St. Francis of Assisi; not surprising, because he is one the most beloved saints of all times. And one who truly deserves the title "saint". He represents so many virtues I wish I could manifest: love for nature and animals, caring for the sick and poor, friendly dialogue between different faiths, peace. I would like to be Franciscan...
• Origen of Alexandria; after reading so much about his ideas, one must conclude he was ahead of his time, and still is. The most important single feature in his philosophy was that he disputed the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell - which is blashemy! 
• Marcion of Sinope; "the great heretic of the early church". He made a strict distinction between Judaism and Christianity, and abandoned the Old Testament all together. Unlike his "orthodox" contemporaries, he didn't accuse Jews for rejecting Jesus. I often use "Marcion" as my nickname online (my name is Marko, so it's close).
• Meister Eckhart; I only know fragments of his thoughts, but it has been enough to impress me. For instance, he believed in Godhead beyond the Trinity, and even claimed that Trinitarian God existed only in people's minds, and he said that even the human form of Jesus may become an obstacle.
• H.P. Blavatsky; the mother of modern Theosophical movement I greatly respect. Even more so, because of all the stories told of her temper and nature. She was a real human being of flesh and blood, not some distant holy person. The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled are yet to be read by me.
• Pekka Ervast; I will always honor him as my spiritual mentor. See the links on the sidebar below, and also many translations I've made of his writings in this blog.
• Rudolf Steiner; contemporary of Pekka Ervast, and they also met. Merits of Steiner are undeniable. However, it is unbearable to me to see how high his followers have raised him: he's next to God whose every word is divine truth.
• Valentin Tomberg; this guy is thorn in the flesh of many anthroposophists - for he was one himself, and then left and converted to Catholicism. I'm reading his "magnum opus", anonymously published Meditations on the Tarot, and I like it! Whatever is causing friction for anthroposophists, is worth to look at. And he was never "orthodox" catholic - this book is full of esotericism.  
• Max Heindel; founder of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, and another guy Steiner himself attacked, allegedly for plagiarizing him. Steiner had his bitter and mean personality features - he was harshly criticising others. I own a copy of Heindel's major work - The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception - published in Finnish in 1922. It is one of my treasures, very rare! 
• Jiddu Krishnamurti; I first learnt about him in context of Theosophy. The whole "World Teacher" episode was very unfortunate, but it surely wasn't his fault, and when he renounced it, that was very upright. I can't say I'm familiar with his philosophy, but glimpses I've had, have been promising.
• Master Beinsa Douno, or Peter Deunov; Bulgarian spiritual master, of whom Rudolf Steiner spoke with reverence. He was also corresponding with Jiddu Krishnamurti. Funny thing is, his disciple is perhaps better known than master...
• Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov; disciple of master Beinsa Douno, who lived in France. They even looked alike! I came to know about teachings of Aivanhov through Cynthia Kitely Lee, so I also found Master Beinsa Douno afterwards. For anyone who's familiar with Theosophy, there is nothing really new.
• Edgar Cayce; I'm not a big fan of channelled information, but Edgar Cayce is one exception I at least choose to consider, for instance, his interpretations on the Book of Revelation. 
• G.I. Gurdjieff; first I was influenced by Enneagram (Take a free test! I'm number 5, by the way!). His message was, "people are asleep; they are machines". So true.
• P.D. Ouspensky; one person who tried to gather Gurdjieff's system together.
• C.G. Jung; I can't say I know his work very much, but his theory of Archetypes has influence on my spirituality. Jesus Christ is the greatest Archetype of all! (And it doesn't matter to me, if that is "all" he is, he is still the most meaningful figure ever!)
• Osho; contradictory character, but it doesn't lessen the value of his teachings that are very Zen-like. 
• Paramahansa Yogananda; Autobiography of a Yogi is excellent book, even though I think it contains some stuff that is simply impossible to believe. What appeals to me, is his way of interpreting Christianity in Eastern context; it may often open new horizons for reader.
• Thich Nhat Hanh; this Vietnamese Buddhist monk is known to me by his books, and as was the case with Yogananda, I especially like how he interprets Christianity through Buddhist eyes.
• Anton LaVey; founder of the Church of Satan. I have read his Satanic Bible, seen few documentary films. He was a smart guy, precisely because he didn't take it all too seriously.
• Michael Aquino; once active member of the Church of Satan, then founder of the Temple of Set. For me his influence lies in the fact I'm reading his memoirs of the Church of Satan and find it very interesting.

Particular spiritual movements

• Lectorium Rosicrucianum; this movement influenced me very strongly, because I was a pupil in the 90's. I was only the fourth pupil in Finland back then, and we had to travel to Sweden for weekend conferences that were held once a month (and I think they still do).  I finally resigned because they teach that pupil should not practice homosexuality (in other words, not love and live!), and I had just met my partner. Today I can say it is a cult! Yet there are some teachings I have kept. For instance, "masters of the White Brotherhood" - or whatever you call it - never make personal appearances and never appeal to human ego. That leaves no room for "Ascended Masters" and their "messengers".
• AMORC; I've been influenced by online writings I have read. I did order their brochure already before I even knew about Lectorium Rosicrucianum. 
• The Liberal Catholic Church; my first contact with LCC was in 1994. My experience with proper Christian ceremonial was now combined with spiritual knowledge and wisdom (Theosophy, that is, and thus acceptance of Reincarnation and karma, among other things). I have kept up my relationship to this very day. However, just like only Adyar Theosophy is present in Finland, so there is only the original branch of LCC that still doesn't ordain women and that is a shame!
• The Christian Community; this denomination was born with assistance of Rudolf Steiner, and it's based on his Anthroposophy. I'm a member, but nowadays not very active - partly because I'm fed up with all Steiner-dogmatism. The Christian Community is supposed to be free from dogmas, but it holds many views that are considered almost self-evident, and it is such a blind spot that people deeply involved won't even see it. This is not to say anything against the Christian Community, but rather just to emphasize the fact that it isn't different from any other church.
• The Independent Church of Australia; this one I know only through internet, and I must say it instantly caught my attention when I first found it many, many years ago. They obviously have many things in common with two denominations mentioned above. I have studied their website thoroughly and also translated some articles for my Finnish blog. Someday I'm going to order some books too.
• Unity; I know Unity also through internet only. I have found much interesting information from their sites. 
• The Holy Order of MANS; long gone movement that was active only in America. Thanks to internet, again, I have found many fascinating resources. There's just something about it that appeals to me; very churchy and even catholic, yet esoteric.
• The Process Church of the Final Judgment; this 1970's movement had very intriguing theology which integrated Jehovah, Christ, Lucifer, and Satan. And it totally makes sense - to me, anyway. I have translated some articles in Finnish.
•  Star of Azazel; Now, this is Finnish society I'm seriously considering to apply to. Theosophical world view with Satanism! It is nothing like hedonism and atheism of the Church of Satan. You better see it for yourself. I'm planning to write about my satanic interests in hopefully near future. 

You may notice how wide variety of influences I recognize. And I'm sure some of them make you wonder, how is that even compatible with everything else. Well, I think life is made of paradoxes. That's what makes it interesting.

RICHNESS AND POVERTY

I have been told that money (i.e. a coin) was first used as a "temple money": When people came to temple to sacrifice from afar, they couldn't bring along the sacrificial animals, so they exchanged animals for this temple money in their home town and with this money they were able to buy animals at the temple. And let's not forget that the first bankers were the spiritual order of the Knights Templars!
According to Pekka Ervast, just as the candidates of the ancient Mysteries had to pass the trials of the four elements, today life itself is a Mystery School and the trial of earth for each of us is how we deal with money. Rudolf Steiner in turn pointed out that in fact in this world "stones are made bread" - we must use money to purchase a living. The less developed a man is, the more selfish he is and only wants to satisfy his own needs; But the more developed he is, the more is he tempted to pursue the riches for the benefit of the others. An old friend used to say, "Money is energy": it's meant to keep moving in order to stay healthy.

Mr.12:13-17. "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God's." Ceasar's image on a penny and superscription: "Augustus, the Son of God" made money as it was, an idol. When it was found from the adversaries of Jesus, they were exposed as co-operators of the Roman Empire. Jesus is saying that give the image of an idol, instrument of oppression and exploitation, back to its owner. Instead, give yourselves- as you are made unto image of God - entirely to God. We may remember here, that English word "talent" is due to "Talent" in the Bible - in Greek "talanton" - which was a sum of money in ancient Rome.
Mt.26:6-13: A woman celebrates a sacramental act by pouring a precious ointment on Jesus' head, and his disciples said: "This ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor." But Jesus replied: "She hath wrought a good work upon me." In this context we may also think of three wise men who worshiped baby-Jesus and presented him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Indeed; Worshiping Christ, loving God, goes before love for neighbors, and even it is for grace that we are able to love Him back as He has loved us first - and keeps loving whether we love Him back or not!
We are merely housekeepers of the Lord in His creation: Everything we have is only for a loan. In the beginning man was also God's possession but the fall was followed by independence as well as growing selfishness. We have separated ourselves from God. Salvation is not ours unless we freely accept it and willingly give ourselves to the Lord. We are tenants in the Vineyard of life, we own nothing, and we must pay the rent to the landlord; bring fruit of experiences to the Giver of Life that will sustain our eternal entity - treasures in heaven - or else we have wasted our life!
Mr. 12:41-44: Poor widow and her two mites. Thomas Keating interprets the story as follows: Many people are rich with the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they cast much into the treasury of the church. These are the gifts of their abundance. What God really wants from you...is YOU: "She of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."
Poor widow also shows us that when money is given for spiritual purpose, Christ beholds the giver with blessing. Everything I do for my church - not so much financially, but through work - never feels enough, because I always receive so much more! My congregation is where I have worked voluntarily for longer and more than in any other place - AND it's the only place where I've not once felt tired!

In Sermon on the Mount Jesus says "Take no thought, saying, what shall we eat? or, what shall we drink? or, wherewithal shall we be clothed?"..."But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Mt.6:31, 33).
When short with the money, I have found this comforting. Orthodox theology calls this attitude "holy carelessness". However, I have found this Chinese proverb which seems to complete what Jesus must have meant: "God will surely feed the birds, but He will not throw food into their nest." ("Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are you not much better than they?" Mt.6:26.)
We are asking our Father to give us this day our daily bread: Not abundantly but just enough for one day at a time. Like Manna in the wilderness not for store but fresh for each day! When Jesus fed 5000 men, some suggest that people actually followed His example: Share what you got with your neighbors and all shall have enough!
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God...and all these things shall be added unto you": Jesus simply means we must do our worldly duties and yet constantly keep the ideal before our inner eyes. We all have within us Martha who is worried and upset about many things, and Mary who knows that only one thing is needed: to sit at the Lord's feet and listen to what He says.
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions...Then come, follow me" (Mt.19:21).
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it" (Luke 9:24).
"He must become greater, I must become less" (John 3:30).
- All these passages mean the same.
"If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you" (Luke 17:6): Mulberry tree is human being, earth is a sensory world and sea is the world of life forces. Man must "plant" himself in the life forces.
We have to become aware that we are poor in spirit and start to seek the kingdom of God. As a model we see the blind man (Mark 10) begging for the light by the roadside of life - when Jesus is passing by, he starts shouting more and more without bothering about those who try to silence him: "Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me!" And we will find out that the kingdom is within (Luke 17:21) - "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" (1. Cr. 6:19).

Sufi mystics taught that both richness and poverty are divine gifts: Richness is corrupted by ungratefulness and poverty is corrupted by greed. Poverty is detachment of the heart from everything else but God, and richness is focusing the heart on the undefined. All belongs to God. When a seeker says farewell to possession, there are no more opposites and he's above both concepts, richness and poverty.
Poverty is lack for that which is necessary; lack for that which is unnecessary is not poverty. Everyone but God is poor, because we all need God to exist. If there is someone who doesn't need anyone to exist, he is absolutely rich. There is only one like this: God. Others are absolutely poor since they need Him to exist.
Man is under obligation to use his reason and will. God has not left his servants without work in his kingdom. Man ought to do what he can and leave the rest for God. It is told that someone said to Sahl, a persian mystic: "A thief broke into my house and stole my things", and Sahl answered: "Thank God that Satan did not break into your heart to steal your faith."

A.P. Shepherd: Spiritual Science and the Christian Churches

Chapter XV from his book: Rudolf Steiner, Scientist of the Invisible. Floris Books 1991 (Originally published in 1954). Arthur Pierce Shepherd (died 1968) was ordinated in the Church of England, worked as a parish priest, Archdeacon of Dudley and Canon of Worcester Cathedral. He was one who carefully tested Steiner's statements for himself with an open mind and found them vital for resolving human needs in our confused and bitter times.

The facts which we have set out so far in regard to the attitude of Spiritual Science to Christianity must present a good many problems to the minds of professing Christian people, and especially to those who are leaders or official ministers of the Christian Churches.
The simple-minded, devout Christian may wonder how he can ever penetrate to the understanding of the facts revealed by Spiritual Science and whether there is an implication that his simple faith is not enough. Again and again in nis writings Steiner declares that he will never willingly disturb such a simple, living faith, which is for all people a right attitude to Christianity, an attitude through which Christ has worked through the centuries of Christendom. In a lecture on "Spiritual Science and Christianity" he quotes, as the starting-point of his theme, this saying of Hegel's:

The deepest thought is bound up with the figure of Christ, and the greatness of the Christian religion lies in the fact that it can be understood at every stage of culture, and yet calls to the highest wisdom.

At the same time, Steiner does not present Anthroposophy only to the intellectual or subtle-minded. The deepest apprehension of it does not depend upon brilliance of intellect, but upon the right qualities of soul, and especially upon that childlike spirit which Christ declares is the key to the kingdom of heaven. Moreover, although a Christian of simple faith may not himself explore the paths of Higher Knowledge, its fruits, in the illumination and conviction which it brings to his belief, will be of inestimable blessing to him.
The thougthful, intelligent Christian cannot fail to be deeply impressed by the Christo-centric nature of the Anthroposophical view of men and the universe, by its factual explanation of spiritual realities and theological dogmas, by the new light and understanding it brings to the study of the Bible, and by its overcoming of the barrier between sacred and secular knowledge. At the same time he will be brought up against new and startling facts, that lead him beyond the range of normal experience, and demand a restatement of some theological or traditional points of view. Nor is it only the thoughtful, orthodox Christian that will be tempted to oppose so radical a "change of mind", but opposition will come from the advanced Biblical critics, whose brilliant destructive criticism is not only disputed in its findings by Anthroposophy, but even in its methods and fundamental assumptions.
But whether the opposition is based upon sincere doubt, or whether the meeting of anthroposophical ideas with scepticism or derision is really a line of self-defence against something which threatens one's own position of intellectual superiority - the answer is the same. It is impossible to understand - still less to judge - the findings of Anthroposophy, just as much in matters of religion as in the fields of science or history, except on the ground of the fundamental concepts about man and the universe which Anthroposophy claims are revealed by "higher knowledge", and on which its findings are based. It is quite possible to reject those fundamental concepts, in which case the findings dependent upon them would fall to the ground. But to attribute a meaning to the findings, based upon another set of concepts, is a false line of criticism.
For example, Steiner's declaration that the physical and spiritual union of the divine Christ with Jesus of Nazareth took place at the Baptism of Jesus by John, has been greeted in some quarters as a revival of the Adoptionist heresy, with its denial of the essential union of the divine and human natures in Jesus. This view is based on the generally-accepted assumption that a man consists entirely of that which is the product of the union of his father and mother, and is born from his mother's womb potentially complete. If Jesus was both man and God, the divine nature, it is claimed, must have been completely incarnate within him from birth.
But Anthroposophy reveals that the nature of man is very different; that in each of us an eternal spirit-self is manifesting in our physical nature, and that in the earliest physical stages of human life that eternal self is not yet operating from within, but from without the human organism. Furthermore, its working is not manifest in full ego-consciousness until the dawn of manhood, nor effective in full soul-transformation until nearly the thirtieth year. Thus Steiner sees Jesus of Nazareth as having arrived at the full unfolding of his humanity, by the working, within his very special human organism, of an eternal human self of the greatest spiritual power and wisdom. At the Baptism in Jordan that great human spirit which had been reincarnated as the higher ego of Jesus of Nazareth, yielded up its perfected human organism, with its developed human ego-consciousness, to be wholly indwelt and informed by the divine being of the Christ. In Jesus Christ, we see the being of God in complete union with the perfect being of Man. In the three years of the ministry the Eternal Word is manifest in human form, in a human life, until in the Mystery of Golgotha, the Son of God made Man achieves the redemption of the world.
It is possible to deny the conception of man's being on which Steiner's presentation of the Incarnation is based, but it is quite irrational to attribute a meaning to that presentation, which is based on quite other fundamental concepts.
There is, of course, a natural tendency for the official leaders of the Churches to regard with suspicion a movement like Anthroposophy, and in Rudolf Steiner's lifetime he met the bitterest opposition from these quarters. Official Christianity has generally been opposed to mysticism, as a menace to ecclesiastical organisation, and subversive 0f its accepted ways of thought and life. This opposition expressed itself in the wildest criticism of Steiner, as a charlatan, or an Anti-Christ, accusations which any knowledge of his writings could disprove at once. Quite recently Nicolas Berdyaev, in a very hostile and personal attack on Steiner, based on attendance at a single course of his lectures, wrote:

Not one ray of light seemed to fall on him from above. His sole purpose and aspiration was to obtain possession of all things from below, by his own titanic devices, and to break through by a passionate effort to the realm of the spirit.

Many passages in Steiner's writings could confute this. One will suffice:

Every occultist today clearly understands that this concept of Grace must belong to his inner practice of life in a quite special degree. There is a golden saying, especially for the occult investigator, "Have patience and wait, not until the truths are grasped by you, but until they come to you." One should say to one's self, "Grace has brought me a certain number of truths. I will wait patiently until further truths stream to me."

Another line of attack - only too frequent with "orthodox" theologians - is to attempt to brush away the whole subject by declaring it to be a revival of an ancient heresy, long ago disproved and condemned. Apart from being purely negative, this criticism disregards the fact that nearly every heresy was the assertion of a neglected truth, which, however, it failed properly to relate to the rest of Christian truth. Because Steiner taught the possobility of supersensible knowledge, Anthroposophy has often been condemned as a revival of the ancient Gnostic heresy. But the Gnostics were not heterics because they possessed "gnosis", the faculty of spiritual clairvoyance. Again and again Steiner pointed out what the heresy of the Gnostics was and disclaimed it, showing at the same time how difficult it was for them, at that time, to rise to the right understanding.

Herein [he writes], lies the difference between the Gnosis and true esoteric Christianity. The Gnostics did indeed recongnise Christ in his divinity. But they were never able to rise to the perception that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

On the other hand, he himself declared that

Christ in the soul of man, Jesus of Nazareth, experienced birth and death. This means that, for the first time, a God passed through human death.

The linking up of Christianity by Steiner to the ancient Mysteries is another ground of criticism of Anthroposophy by theologians. But thirty years ago the late Bishop Gore wrote:

The atmosphere of the mystery religions and of Hellenistic theosophy, with its yearning for divine fellowship and spiritual light and knowledge and salvation and a new birth, and its love of sacramental symbolism and fellowship, has a good deal to do with the diffusion of the Christian Church.

Again, in his book Liturgy and Society, Father Hebert quotes Archbishop Söderblom as follows:

A day is coming when the science of religions will have learnt to interpret the much wider continuity of our Saviour's death and resurrection with the ancient pagan rituals.

Hebert also writes himself:

The Apostles Creed corresponds to the pagan myths of the Saviour-gods. It repeats the age-long theme of the dying god. But the startling words in it are the words, "suffered under Pontius Pilate." This salvation myth was enacted in the full light of history. This Saviour-God really died and rose again.

The whole theme of Steiner's book, Christianity as Mystical Fact, is that in Jesus Christ the hidden ritual of the ancient Mysteries was openly enacted, in an actual historical life.
But in regard to the relation between Anthroposophy and the Christian Churches, we may let Steiner speak for himself. In a lecture on "Spiritual Science and Christianity" he used these words:

It would be a misunderstanding to suppose that Spiritual Science is in any sense a new religious faith in place of the old one. To avoid all misconceptions, we may even say, when once they rightly understand it, people will realise that Anthroposophy as such, while it is the firmest and most sure support for religious life, itself is no religion. But it can nevertheless be an instrument to explain and to unfold the deepest truths and wisdom teachings, the most solemn and living mysteries of the religions. The farther we go in penetrating towards the spiritual worlds, the deeper content shall we find in the great Christian documents. The Christian documents appear to us in higher radiance, in deeper content and fullness of truth, when we approach them with that keen spiritual vision that can be gained by the help of Anthroposophy. It is true that the simplest mind can feel what truths there are in Christianity. But man's concsiousness will not always be satisfied with a dim feeling; he will want to evolve to a higher stage, he will want to know and to gain knowledge. And even when his consciousness has risen to the highest heights of wisdom, there will still be deep mysteries in Christianity. Christianity is for the simplest human soul, and it is for the most highly-developed intellectuality.

Steiner himself defined Anthroposophy as follows: "Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe." Anthroposophy deals directly, through higher knowledge, with the spiritual phenomena which are the subject matter of religion. It is not itself concerned with forms of worship or belief, or with matters of faith or order, or with the possession of a ministry or of sacraments. It arrives at direct knowledge about spiritual reality, and thereby throws light on a great deal which is the content of religion. But these facts are put forward as matters of scientific observation, and are in no sense dogmas which have to be believed if one wishes to be an Anthroposophist. While, therefore, Anthroposophy can be a great help to the understanding of the subject matter of religion, it can be approached from the standpoint of any or of no religion.
It is true that a Christian Church has come into being as the result of the teaching of Anthroposophy. This Church is called "The Christian Community". It came into being in the early twenties of this (last) century in Germany, amongst a group of men and women who felt the need for a revival of religious life, but had not been able to find what they sought at their Universities. They had been deeply moved by the teaching of Anthroposophy, and they came to Rudolf Steiner and asked him whether he could help them to express Christian faith and worship in terms of the knowledge arrived at through Spiritual Science, in a way which would lead to spiritual renewal. Steiner at first hoped that it might have been possible to implant the new impulse for Christianity, which he saw was essential, within the existing Church organisation, but he became convinced that that was impossible, and he gave them the fullest help, out of his own initiate knowledge, in the founding of "The Christian Community". But "The Christian Community" is not part of the Anthroposophical Society. It is an independent religious body with its own organisation.
It does not come within the scope of this book to give any detailed account of the Christian Community. It is a Church based on the historic fact of Christ, and its worship is centred round the Eucharist. There is much in its liturgical practice and its interpretation of the Bible and of Christian doctrine, that will enrich the life and thought of the Christian Church generally. One of its main principles is that it does not proselytise. It does not seek to draw to itself those who are already members of other Churches, but only those who are attached to no Church or who cannot find satisfaction in their own religion. It is fairly widely spread in Germany and there are a number of centres of the Church in this country.
But while there are many Anthroposophists who are members of the "Christian Community", there are also many who belong to other Churches, and who regard their membership in their own Church as of supreme value. They have discovered that what Spiritual Science has revealed to them only strengthens and confirms their Christian faith, altough at times it may lead to a re-statement or even a complete revision of the mode of expressing some Christian truths. But no conflict of loyalties is involved in being a member of any Church and at the same time a student of Anthroposophy. For Anthroposophy is not a religion, but a science.
Finally there is the traditional opposition of the Christian Church to any form of occultism, regarding it as something that is forbidden in Scripture. In the first place it is necessary to understand the background against which this scriptural prohibition came into being. We have seen how the progressive loss of true clairvoyance meant that men could only make direct contact with the spiritual world at a low and often sub-human level. Steiner himself points out how the Hebrew people was chosen for the very purpose of resisting this inevitable downward trend. They were to be a people who were to become aware of God by an inward intuition, by an almost physical awareness, and who were thus directly opposed to occultism, particularly in the debased forms in which it existed around them. It was therefore forbidden in Jewish law.
Today, however, we are facing a quite different situation. Modern science presents a world view from which any supersensible reality is excluded. On the other hand, there has awakened in the minds of very many people in the last half-century, a desire for spiritual knowledge, which is leading them into ways which, while they are not always rephensible, are methods which will never arrive a exact spiritual fact, and can easily lead to entirely mistaken concepts. Furthermore, unhealthy and even evil forms of occultism are far more widespread than the Christian or ordinary citizen imagines.
The path which is offered by Spiritual Science is that of direct, clear, conscius spiritual knowledge, evolved by an intensification of true scientific thinking, prepared for by a real moral preparation, and leading, not to a materialised vision of spiritual reality, but to the development of the higher organs of the human organism, by means of which spirit-reality can be perceived and understood in its own proper environment. To reject Spiritual Science is to leave uncontrolled the evil occult movements of our day, and to refuse the enlightment and certainty which is offered to religion. In these days when men's minds are absorbed in their scientific achievements, it is more than ever important to be able to read the spiritual signs of the times.