I vow to save them all

 

Jiddu Krishnamurti 1895 - 1986

The most important book I read last year, was definitely a biography of  Jiddu Krishnamurti by Mary Lutyens, freshly published in Finnish in 2024. It is said to be the only official biography. The writer knew Krishnamurti personally over 70 years. 

I have been interested in Krishnamurti for a long time, even though I still have read up on his works very little. It is admirable how he disclaimed the role that was envisioned for him, and began to teach his own truth. [Here you can find the text of the talk he gave on August 3, 1929, when he dissolved The Order of the Star that he was head of. Years and years later he maintained that the core of his teaching is included in the sentence, "Truth is a pathless land".]

Minor references in this book to theosophical clairvoyant and liberal catholic bishop, C.W. Leadbeater, who supposedly found Krishnamurti, strengthen my judgement that he was NOT a highly developed man: he was full of himself and wanted to make himself important. The path of initiation as he saw it, was mere fantasy. He was disappointed and thought Krishnamurti had "failed". Instead, Annie Besant, president of the Theosophical Society and his foster mother, "was the one person who never doubted that Krishnaji [Krishnamurti's nickname] was the world teacher. She had warned everyone that when the World Teacher manifests, he may say things completely contrary to what they expect."* Reputedly she later said in private, that maybe he was greater than we imagined: not expected world teacher, but the truth itself walking quietly among us. 

Personally, I have always enjoyed ceremonies of the Liberal Catholic Church, but I have recognized their imperfection: in an attempt to renew the Christian Church in 1916, they were too hasty, and renewal was left halfway. They still lean too much on the old tradition. The Christian Community did it much better a few years later, in 1922. I'm still a member of the latter one, yet an ex-christian. 

Even in this book, a question is left unanswered if Maitreya actually was behind Krishnamurti. It seems that he himself was equally puzzled. He did say, "I have never denied the Masters, but Leadbeater and Arundale [also a bishop in LCC, and the president of the Theosophical Society after passing of Annie Besant in 1933, leading it until 1945] brought what was sublime to the ridiculous, and I denied the ridiculous."*

All his life he underwent something that he called "process", which caused him great pains. But a feelings of bliss and sacredness were there too. 

Osho, a controversial modern guru, who had some interesting ideas, but whom I can't possibly consider enlightened (if you have seen Netflix documentary series, Wild Wild Country, you know what I mean), valued Krishnamurti, and said he was on the mountain top and his listeners were down in the valley. He also said, Krishnamurti didn't give answers, he was the answer. That is an impression you might get while listening to recordings of his speeches. [see the YouTube Channel of Krishnamurti Foundation.] Sometimes he seems a little frustrated: "You have listened to me for decades, and you haven't changed! Change now, not tomorrow." At some point he states, he has been like he is since childhood, "a freak of nature". Perhaps he was not able to see how hard that, which was natural to him, was for other people? He has been criticized by some for not offering any method. 

One has to find the answer for oneself; one has to wipe the slate clean and begin again, knowing that no one outside is going to help you - no authority, no belief, no religious sanctions, no moral standards - nothing. Nor will the past, with its scriptures, saviours, gurus, and all that. These are no longer important. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti, talk to young people 2, Brandeis University, 21 October 1968

Krishnamurti met Dalai Lama and they had philosophical conversation in spirit of mutual respect. Dalai Lama said that Krishnamurti is one of the greatest thinkers of our Era. He also had discussions with physicist David Bohm. I have cited him as I told of my interest in quantum physics: there is a logical continuation from quantum physics to Krishnamurti - it's all about the nature of reality, and our status in it. This is an example how ideas come to me at the right time, in right order, to support my spiritual growth. I think even my experience at Lectorium Rosicrucianum, with Gnosticism, was valuable [For both, quantum physics and gnosticism, see my previous post, This I know in my Heart: My Experience of Gnosis]: there is some truth about their teachings, that is, we are influenced, we are lived, and we must change: become neutral, inwardly silent. But you don't need to belong to a group - rather I see it as an individual task, even lonely task - neither you need forced restrictions, nor all that unnecessary esoteric hogwash. Just listen to Krishnamurti; he is the purest embodiment of this mental state. 

 To stand alone is to be uncorrupted, innocent, free of all tradition, of dogma, of opinion, of what another says, and so on. Such a mind does not seek, because there is nothing to seek; being free, such a mind is completely still, without a want, without movement. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ojai 2nd public talk, 7th August 1955

Krishnamurti was asked what he thought about Buddha, and he answered he didn't: thought does not reach the realm of understanding. Allegedly he also said that nobody listened to Buddha, and that's why we have Buddhism. Naturally, same can be said of Jesus and Christianity. When a Buddhist scholar listed things Krishnamurti seemed to agree on with Buddha, Krishnamurti first asked why such a comparison. He did say, however, that Buddha had always appealed to him. 

Just before reading the book, I was worried about my mental health: I felt I went so deep on the edge of desperation, minding the state of humanity today. It has been a long process. Most of all I have been  bothered by the fact, that I am just like everyone else! I have strong opinions, I can easily take a side and get agitated by those I disagree with. Yet, people really don't have opinions of their own - we absorb everything from outside. I even questioned if I want to be part of the human race. I remember reading that according to early Christian Desert Fathers, to truly love mankind and pray for all one needs to take distance. That's why they retreated from the world. Similarly, I find it necessary to keep mental distance today: I no longer follow the News that much - they are often speculating about the worst case scenarios and causing pointless fear and worry. Likewise, it has become essential for me not to read internet forums or comments; then you will definitely lose hope about the future of mankind (and I don't mean no one should comment on my posts: I write about such a marginal stuff, it won't interest many, so apparently I don't attract attention of bullies either.)

Humanity has gone through devaluation, now that anyone can vomit the content of their mind for the eyes of others. Three poisons defined in Buddhism - attachment or greed, aversion or hatred, and ignorance - are just as relevant today as ever. [A good description of them is given here.]

When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti

I have used a phrase, "I'm only human", as an excuse not to try. Now, thanks to Krishnamurti, it has become clear to me: Yes, it all starts with me, I must change! It won't start with states or companies, but with individuals. Even peace is attained only by striving for peace in one's own life. That is a message nobody likes to hear, because it demands so much from you - your whole life! It is not enough to protest, vote, recycle, go vegan... it is all external. The real change occurs within. Also, it is not about definitions of "good" and "evil", and following commands or precepts; that is only shifting the focus within old confines. It is about observing oneself, and becoming aware; that much I'm able to understand. 

The man who wants to improve himself can never be aware, because improvement implies condemnation and the achievement of a result. Whereas in awareness there is observation without condemnation, without denial or acceptance. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Since the beginning of my Buddhist practice in 2018, I have been praying in silent prayers of my daily Gongyo (which I have modeled after examples given by other independent practitioners online, usually ex-SGI members), "for the great aspiration of Buddha; peace for land generated by means of the purification of mind." It is gratifying to see clear evolution in your spiritual life: difficult matters ripen in your mind slowly but surely, and produce fruits of insight at some point. Sometimes they can be "self-evident", something you have read and known in theory, until they come to life to you in personal realization when you are ready. 

To transform the world, we must begin with ourselves; and what is important in beginning with ourselves is the intention. The intention must be to understand ourselves and not to leave it to others to transform themselves or to bring about a modified change through revolution, either of the left or of the right. It is important to understand that this is our responsibility, yours and mine...

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Also only now I better understand Bodhisattva vows, that are part of my practice, as they are part of Nichiren Shu Gongyo. Like, "sentient beings are innumerable: I vow to save them all." What - I, all!? That is exactly one man's responsibility as part of the whole, just like you take part in all negativity along with the rest of mankind. I once heard that at least in the US at some schools of Buddhism, they have replaced that with a phrase, "I am with them": it is uninspiring, and undermines the whole statement. I may understand, that Westerners might easily be reminded of Christianity and Jesus, who alone saves all. "The way of the Buddha is unexcelled: I vow to attain the Path Sublime." [See "How to be a Bodhisattva" by Nichiren Shu UK.]

Sentient beings obviously include not only humans. I don't believe in Christian idea of man as a "crown of creation", who was given dominion over other species. We are one species among others. Even intellect hasn't been only beneficial for us, we have misused it a lot. I think animals who act according to their nature, are more purely what they are and closer to their original purpose. Man is the greatest reason for their suffering as well, therefore their liberation must begin by man. 

As a Christian I used to say again and again to myself: neighborly love begins with yourself. Indeed. It is a paradox, that when the spiritual path takes you deeper and deeper within, it may seem self-centered. But when a man acknowledges one's own responsibility for the state of whole human race, their perception will enlarge inevitably. You are part of the problem, unless you're part of the solution. You can either go with a flow - highway to hell with the majority of mankind - or you can go to counter-current with the few who can see. 

If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti

I have known about Krishnamurti from 1990's, along with Theosophy. It seems that I already have everything I need: I just really need to realize it. Moments of anxiety and desperation always seem to precede the greatest realizations. There is nothing new to me, but sometimes I may lose inner resolution out of my sight, while worrying what is wrong with human race around me, human race I'm part of. I seem to be very disposed to influences, which often shows in negative ways, but in this case it is manifested through openness and receptivity as I listen to Krishnamurti. I feel I receive something, even if understanding was not reached right away. 

When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love. Love is the missing factor; there is a lack of affection, of warmth in relationship; and because we lack that love, that tenderness, that generosity, that mercy in relationship, we escape into mass action which produces further confusion, further misery. We fill our hearts with blueprints for world reform and do not look to that one resolving factor which is love.

Jiddu Krishnamurti 

When I told my old friend about my interest in quantum physics, I was disappointed in his weak reaction. This time at least as enthusiastic about Krishnamurti as I was in quantum physics, I just noted with understanding that nothing in him resonated with this.  

My own small insights along the way have pointed at the same direction, built me up bit by bit, and I feel that what Jiddu Krishnamurti is talking about, is the next logical step on spiritual evolution, that goes beyond all religions. It requires questioning all knowledge assumed until now. Even I'm still too attached to my Buddhism. I'm like a vessel filled with finest wines, but I'd rather go to fountain of fresh water springing up in me. 

How can you think about something which you do not know? You may have read the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, or other books in which various erudite scholars have skillfully described what God is, asserting this and contradicting that; but as long as you do not know the process of your own thinking, what you think about God may be stupid and petty, and generally it is.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

*Prof. Padmanabhan Krishna, Krishnamurti Foundation India: Annie Besant & Krishnamurti: Two great souls in the quest for truth. 

See also: Carlos Cardoso Aveline: The Making of an Avatar; Examining Adyar's Attempt to Fabricate the Return of Christ.

Below a documentary for DVD of Lucasfilm television series, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (1992 - 1996). I used to watch it, and the only episode I can remember, was the one where young Indy met Krishnamurti; Leadbeater and Besant were portrayed as well. I was excited about Theosophy at that time, so it was very intriguing to me. 

Jiddu Krishnamurti: The Reluctant Messiah [26:48]: 

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

SEX, LOVE, MARRIAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

Peter Tatchell: Porn Can Be Good For You.

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.