This I know in my Heart: My Experience of Gnosis

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

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

Symbol of Lectorium Rosicrucianum

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

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

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

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

Center of Lectorium Rosicrucianum in Sweden (picture by me)

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

Temple of Lectorium Rosicrucianum (picture found from internet)

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

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

My drawing from ´90s

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

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

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

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

Jan van Rijckenborgh

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

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

Maurice (1987), re-release trailer

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

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

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

My drawing from ´90s

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

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

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

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

My drawing from ´90s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of the Society is

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

The activities of the Society include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Words

 

In my Finnish blog I often refer to one particular friend of mine, a straight male and Christian. I have known him for 20 years, and he has always been the one I often have a hard time with. Always. Only him and no one else. So, we've had conflicts over the years, nothing has really changed in that respect, but since I left Christianity, it particularly seems to trouble him, and that in turn is a pain in my neck. Things have escalated really bad this time, and it's been a year already! About year ago, he sent me an e-mail, a long list of questions. First, let me just say that as a Christian, he is an esotericist, who believes in reincarnation (just like I was too); Yet, simultaneously, he is morally extremely conservative (as much as I am liberal). Those two things sometimes seem to be in conflict, and it's not just my opinion: I can see it in his personality, and how it's affecting him. He has actually lost relationships among more traditional Christians in the past, because of his personal beliefs. (And I'm not saying there aren't esoteric movements, which are very conservative: I once belonged to one myself. But usually they are more open, accepting, and free, than many mainstream Christian denominations.) 

Have you replaced one religion with another?

When I came to Christianity, I actually consciously replaced one religion (Gnosticism) with another (my previous post, New Revelations, touches that briefly). Over 10 years later, I renounced Christianity, and when my partner suddenly died, I had no religion at all. There was nothing to be replaced. Then I awakened to Buddhism through inner, mystical experience, and as I studied these things I realized, this is how I'm pretty much already thinking. 

Finnish Lutheran Vicar, Voitto Viro - bold seeker for truth - wrote in the 1970's: "It is right to accept this attitude: If you show me the truth, that will convince my spirit with greater absoluteness than the truth lightened by Jesus, alright then: My spirit binds me to be loyal to that truth, which bestows the deepest freedom." 

I have been wondering why we no longer talk about these things, but when I was pondering his questions, I already began to get tired. 

He has repeatedly said that I "used to read and study a lot", but apparently he thinks I don't anymore, as I read and study different things. And he can't even see that himself. He thinks he's only praising me for my past, when at the same time he's playing down (or completely ignoring) my present. I never exclusively studied Christianity, and now that I'm through with that, it seems superficial that it would matter if you believe in certain claims or not. It's only bookish.

To talk about "deep stuff" for the sake of talking, that's superficial too. He once said he no longer knows what I believe in. Why should he? For me, faith is a private matter. It's hard for me to share my deepest thoughts with anyone, because I feel nobody can understand. Nobody has walked the same path as I have. And why talk about doctrinal questions on theoretical level in the first place? Isn't it a question of life?! The most relevant can never be expressed in words, or shared with anyone: You have to experience that by yourself, and experience is individual for everyone. Isn't it a main point to accept one another, no matter what. It's not supposed to be a competition, where the point is to defeat another one with clever arguments. 

Understandably, I feel frustrated when asked questions I have already answered thoroughly in my blogs. I express myself best in writing, I'm not a good speaker, so I rather don't discuss these things with anyone. I have also touched the problem I see we always have had: When I try to form my ideas of religion - or "spirituality" - into words, it's like writing a poem. But often I see that for him it is like solving a mathematical problem: completely different approach, as if we spoke two different languages. He has told me how important science and especially mathematics has been to him, even as a seeker for truth on the spiritual path. For me, I think art is closer connection to Spirit. So, our greatest difference is not a content of thought, but the whole process how we come to our conclusions. I have always trusted more in my heart, even though I do highly value persons who read a lot, and especially diversely (and he's not one of them!). But it's not enough. Knowledge you learn from a book is not your own, it's borrowed, until you have experience of it (Gnosis). If you say you know something of spirituality, based on your experience, another person can have equally strong experience, that led them to completely different conclusions. Then it only sounds arrogant to emphasize your own knowledge. Many Christian believers act like that, and it makes repulsive impression. "Truth" is very narrow and small if it is some doctrine or idea included in specific religion. 

Seen afterwards, I have walked my way very consistently, step by step: Obviously, I haven't seen at the moment where it was taking me, but every phase was necessary for me, and only for me. There was providence all along. In my perspective and experience, it is odd if a person does not change, and their world view does not seemingly evolve. It is stagnation. 

We have never agreed on many things, to think anything else is just illusion. I have learnt long time ago what I can't say to him, and avoided those things. It is also true that we used to have a connection, but it was nothing said, it was shared spiritual practice that united us. Silence speaks louder than words: words can only separate, silence is unifying. It was natural when we had a formal "group" for few years. We gathered together on regular basis, to pray and meditate. It is more difficult when we meet informally. I have tried to make it clear that if you want to discuss deeply, you should also practice/quiet/meditate for counterbalance. Maybe it's just me who has a need for that. 

I don't think it's wrong that I'd rather talk about these things with someone like-minded - that is, another Nichiren Buddhist - so that we could compare our experiences, and support one another, maybe even practice together. However, nobody's mind is exactly like mine: As an independent practitioner, I have a freedom of choice. Buddhism, just like Christianity, is not one gray monolith. Nichiren Buddhism is a kind of its own, and even among that there are several distinguished schools. Practice is one unifying factor. I couldn't have converted to Buddhism for example in its Theravada form. Added to that, I have my whole spiritual history behind me (see the introduction page of this blog). 

Have you often gone through a crisis, that caused your view to change?

Yes and no. Some crisis may have forced me to change, and it has been a long and painful process, but also sudden inner experience may have changed everything all at once: This is how I became a Buddhist. I was "reborn", so to speak. The most essential thing has never changed, it has only become strengthened and cleared: There is something precious within, "Christ in us", Buddha Nature. 

Are you a Buddhist?

Why this question? How is it not clear to him? I try to think he probably didn't mean it that way, but repeatedly I have a feeling as if he's questioning me. That's another reason why I don't like to talk about these things especially with him. Maybe it's because he tries to analyze everything. I base everything on experience, reasoning is secondary. 

What do you think about NDE? (Near-Death Experience)

I have told him my opinion sometimes. For whatever reason, NDE is very important for him. Maybe he should live a little first. I think it is real per se, yes, and there are a lot of universal characteristics about it, but also characteristics that arise from person's own mind. Tibetan Book of the Dead speaks about this. I always get suspicious the more specific these stories are; Either the Afterlife is described resembling this world, in materialistic manner, or people are meeting entities from their religious sphere, like Jesus. I think death has a lot in common with dreaming, it's not without reason these two have been parallelled in the old days. But it's not meaningful to focus on Afterlife in this life. And to read others' experiences is not the same as to experience it. Already as a child in the 1980's I read about Raymond Moody's research, and before heart surgery in 2019, I did read a book by Anita Moorjani, and that one I liked: especially because she does not come from Western, Christian culture, but Indian Hindu family, and was raised in Hong Kong. Her experience lacked characteristics I find suspicious. 

Do you think Jesus was a historical person?

No serious researcher doubts the historicity of Jesus, neither do I. It doesn't mean more than that. I only want to know Jesus the Man. Like Osho said: "Because you are in the situation of being a Jesus; Christ is just a dream." Christians worship mythical Christ, and don't listen to Jesus. Nevertheless, there is indeed Mystical Christ, and it is within each and every one of us, call it by whatever name; That's the only Christ St. Paul in his epistles is pointing at. 

Is the truth a subjective matter to you?

As Wikipedia article explains, "truth" is not as self-explanatory idea as my friend seems to think. It's very vague concept. I have never understood how casually he uses it, apparently presuming that everyone else will understand it the same way he does. 

Have you always been personally for some orientation or something else?

I don't understand his question. I have always fully been what I have been. That's why change may be painful, even if they are birth pains. 

Is religion or any worldview only a collection of subjective opinions you can change completely? 

Views are man-made. Buddhism does not plead for Divine origin. In fact, I find something that resonates with myself in thoughts of Protagoras, a Greek philosopher (490-420 BCE). See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Emphasis on Something. Don't take it to mean too much; I haven't profoundly digged into his philosophy. 

What does science mean to you? Is your idea of man compatible with modern science? What about the world view?

I have not especially made myself familiar with science. Does the earth rotate the sun? If he wants to know if I am materialist, then no. That's the short answer. 

Have you preserved anything from Christianity?

Not consciously. But everything I have ever been, is somehow always with me. You can not get rid of it completely. 

What about the things Christianity and Buddhism agree on? I have been glad about the commandments. They are so similar to Christianity. Do you live according to Buddhist commandments/morals/precepts? 

This is finally a topic of great importance. There are no commandments in Buddhism. It's not a teaching of morals. Even I misunderstood that when I used to observe Buddhism from outside as Christian, and actually thought I could grasp other faiths as well. 

"The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong." (Buddha Net)

It's not even about right or wrong, it's about what is skillful or unskillful. Even to five precepts there are more than meets the eye. My favorite example is sex: Christianity sees a horrible sin, apparently worse than killing, which is quietly approved, and therefore human sexuality needs to be controlled by religious authority. Buddhism does not value marriage or procreation that much, even monogamy is not always so self-evident. I hate moralism in religion, and my friend is a master of that. 

I don't see real similarity between Christianity and Buddhism. Approach is very different. Do I live accordingly? Still: They are not commandments. I support Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Shonin wrote:

“The five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo, the heart of the essential teaching of the Lotus Sutra, contain the benefit amassed through the countless practices and meritorious deeds of all Buddhas throughout the three existences. Then, how can these five characters not include the benefits obtained by observing all of the Buddhas’ precepts? Once the practitioner embraces this perfectly endowed wonderful precept, he cannot break it, even if he should try. It is therefore called the precept of the diamond chalice” 

What kind of idea of man do you have? Do you have a spiritual idea of man?

Idea of man?  Spiritual idea of man? I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what he means by that. Perhaps different aspects of man according to Anthroposophy, because that's what he has read up on. (I used to think like that too.) Spirit and matter are not opposite to each other, apart from each other. 

What do you think about God?

I rather don't use that name burdened with such strong mental images. There is this excellent video (6 min) - Is there God or not? What did Buddha say? 

Perhaps it won't give a kind of direct answer one wants to hear, but perhaps it will make it clear what sort of question one is really asking... 

Next quote is from the novel, The Gardens of Light, by Lebanese author, Amin Maalouf. It's about Prophet Mani, founder of Manichaeism (highly recommendable!). Since I only have read it in Finnish translation, I had to re-translate a quote myself (original text is French):

People think they worship Godhead, even though they only have seen images of it, whether made of wood, gold, alabaster, or presented in painting, or words, or ideas. The one who refuses to see God in images presented to them, may be closer to His true image than others... 

When someone says they love God above all, they are actually saying they love their own concept of "god". I don't think you can even form an idea of the Ultimate Reality, and put it into words. If you say, "God exists", there is this idea and there are words; it's not "truth". You are only scrabbling blind. Not everything you put together is useless, though, like teachings of Buddha; Some of it may be quite applicable while living in this material world as bodily being, but it shouldn't be mistaken as end in itself. The Ultimate Reality is beyond human understanding.

This list of questions seemed more like a test than discussion, and personally I didn't find them relevant. They reminded me of Buddha's parable when he was asked metaphysical questions of the nature of Cosmos... 

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

See Wikipedia: Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

This year (2023) my friend offered to send me his writing about his "Theology". I refused. For once, I was honest and straightforward about my feelings, and it was received favorably. 

But then he asked me if I have locked in what is true. HE asked me! I could ask him that very question, but I haven't, because I realize how arrogant it sounds like! He might as well continue that he knows what is true. If he remembered what kind of spiritual way I have walked, he should know that I am the very opposite of that! 

If anything, I can thank him for substance he has provided me to perfect my thoughts about these matters, brighter and clearer. While it's true that I identify as Nichiren Buddhist, approve of its basic teachings, and follow its tradition in my practice, I do have my own philosophy, formed by itself through life. Sometimes it's said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. I think that is one-sided view, probably favored by secular Westerners. I think it depends very much on practitioner, and their School. Buddhism is also a religion. My approach is clearly more religious one than philosophical, and Nichiren Buddhism is perhaps closer to religion than some other Schools, as I see it. Whereas my philosophy seamlessly encloses a religion I practice, it's not emptied by it. My spirituality consists of manifold aspects, since man is manifold creature. 

All the time we pass each other with our words. Repeatedly I have tried to bring up what I think is the most relevant, first suggesting subtly, and later emphasizing, and yet I feel it is ignored, and instead he's clinging to details. Is there already an insurmountable abyss of understanding between us? We are both equally hopeless in this discussion, which is not discussion at all, but arguing. It starts to repeat itself, and leads to nowhere. I don't think he does it on purpose, but he offends me time and again. It doesn't require too many words. I'm aware of my own tendency of malice, and I don't know if I can always avoid it (or if I even want to). 

This is why I don't want to belong to any organization, or go to some group meetings. I just walk my own way, wishing to treasure my own spiritual life in peace. Is it too much to ask? My way is not his way, he doesn't need to understand. That's how I should have answered in the first place. Everything else was unnecessary. Too many words. Unfortunately, I also happen to love words. But often less is more. It's obvious that he's not actually interested to know my truth: he's only looking for affirmation for his own assumptions. Therefore, it's useless to expect that I should be interested: The rest of my life is too short to be wasted on things that mean nothing to me. I've already seen Christianity. 

 I don't think he even understands how tired of this I am. I feel he's interfering with my privacy, and he's extremely biased: his list of questions gave it off. Last year I avoided him for months, and he probably didn't notice. He would hardly notice very soon if I just ceased communication entirely. I don't know why I bother so much, and don't just let it go its natural course. Nothing's permanent anyway. It must be the weight of 20 years of acquaintance. 

But all this because of religion? I guess it is important for him, but is it worth it? If only Creed had united us in the past, then it wouldn't matter, for it is superficial, but I don't think that's all. And it's about 10 years already since I left Christianity. Why so suddenly it's such a big problem? 

I expressed my frustration in harsh words. Far too long I have kept it to myself. Maybe it was hasty, I'm not sure, but I'm actually relieved now that it's all out in the open. The rest is up to his response, or lack thereof. We will see. I'm done for now. I only pray for the best result for both of us, and I don't really know what that is... My most urgent thought, as weird as it may sound, was: Will there be one person less at my funeral. Almost like his absence wouldn't leave a hole in my life, and I'm not sure it would... we have met so randomly in recent years anyway. 

I know I'm not a friend for him. He doesn't need enemies when he's got a "friend" like me. I don't respect his beliefs and values, and he often seems to bring forth the worst in me... I wonder if I see too much of myself in him (and don't like what I see)? I would never confide in him (but who would I confide in, though, unless a professional), and I don't even want to hear about his hardships, because they are always the same, year after year, and I can't say what I think because he wouldn't receive it well. Yes, he was there when I really needed, when my partner died; he was the one who gave me his time, more than anyone else: That was true friendship, and I doubt if I was able to do the same.  However, some good memories are not enough to carry on, so why even try? Is it because it's happened before; I have lost many people I once considered friends, and even by choice. It's been almost too easy to move forward, and leave people behind. But maybe I  have been wrong to assume that if I lose connection with myself, I lose connection with other people, and therefore I should go inward. Maybe it is the other way round: I lose connection with other people (and more comprehensively, with Life itself!) if I withdraw too much, instead of reaching out towards others. 

When we had our group meetings (2009-2012) every other week for couple of hours at the local congregation, other people took part randomly, mostly it was just the two of us, but it worked just fine, and that's what I miss most - deeper connection we had, most likely owing to shared spiritual practice, regardless of doctrines and thoughts (even though I also considered myself a Christian at that time). I was lucky to have a friend, who got involved in my whims with same earnestness, because it was also clear that not many people understood what I wanted to accomplish. 

We started our meetings with tea and free discussion for an hour, another hour was for spiritual practice. We tried various methods. I don't think it matters how you practice, it's the main point that you do. Today I would choose a method which is not tied to one religion. There can be meaningful spirituality and sense of community, without reading the Scriptures and praying to God, among people from various backgrounds, and still there can be symbols and rituals that bring them together. I have watched live streams of worship services of Unitarian Universalist Unity Temple, and I like it a lot. It's not in conflict with Buddhism, there is room for that as well. (In Finland we have association too, but they have dropped "universalism" out of their name, and are just "Unitarians" now; also, based on their website, they seem to be solely attached to Jewish-Christian tradition, and that doesn't appeal to me at all!) 

Is it past, then? In those days we had a white rose as a symbol - one was actually always there in our meetings, in a bowl of water - today I would bring that together (at least on mental level) with a white lotus: Simply because I love symbols; They enliven abstract ideas, and here we have both continuance and evolution. We could meet simply at the coffee shop, and practice tea meditation awhile; we also tried that in our group. It's quite informal, and allows you to pause in silence while enjoying your beverage. There's nothing awkward about silence, it is natural. (Google "Tea meditation", and you will find many inspiring instructions; apply them as you will.) We would absolutely not discuss spiritual theories or speculations whatsoever: Just one human meeting another human. Spirituality can be very narrow and restrictive role sometimes. Why would you rather talk about it, than make a genuine spiritual connection?

Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis on which the world earth revolves – slowly, evenly, without rushing toward the future. Live the actual moment. Only this moment is life.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh

Could we just agree to disagree. We are not interested in same things, so that's not a foundation to build on. This is a paradox: Connection and sharing is possible, also and specially without words. That's what I want to believe in. We should not communicate through e-mail anymore. Internet kind of splits your personality: who you are online, is not who you are in person. If something can not be said face to face, it shouldn't be said at all. The most refreshing meetings between us have been those, when we have just chatted this and that. I have an image in my head, of Jesus and Buddha drinking tea together. I imagine they would have got along just fine. 

From Hikaru Nakamura's manga/anime, Saint Young Men

I LOVE GAY SEX

That title most certainly caught your attention! The most popular posts in this blog are about sex, what else. So, let's write about sex. I republish this post after some more editing, or censuring; I wasn't ready for all the details I included in my first version. Still I must warn you, there is going to be explicit language and graphic content! This is not for prudes! This is an honest account - so honest it may make you embarrassed. I am a private person, but on the other hand I want to shake those images other people may have about me; they are most likely one-sided. 

I have always wanted to emphasize that I'm not a saint, nor willing or trying to be one. I can't stand those people with their halos too tight around their heads! It is because of Christianity, that we tend to make a sharp distinction between sexuality and spirituality. I also fell into that trap as I began my Spiritual journey in my 20's, but in my case it was Theosophy, with those old classical books of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, which told that one must be purified to walk the Spiritual Path. That's how I got it, and of course it caused a great turmoil within my soul. Even more so, once I joined the Gnostic Mystery School, Lectorium Rosicrucianum, where the whole point was to rise above this world.

For long time sex and spirit were two separate threads to me, before they were harmoniously woven into the fabric of life - or were they, I don't know; at least they are no longer in conflict with each other. 

Just like spirituality is part of humanity in one way or another, so is sexuality, and obvious and essential part. Furthermore, love is love and sex is sex: they may go together or they don't. There is no rule.

 I may have attained something in terms of spirituality, but sexuality is still mostly a mystery to me waiting to be solved.

In his Red Book Carl Jung wrote:

 Man shall differentiate himself both from spirituality and sexuality. He shall call spirituality mother, and set her between Heaven and earth. He shall call sexuality Phallos, and set him between himself and earth. For the Mother and the Phallos are superhuman daimons that reveal the world of the Gods. They affect us more than the Gods since they are closely akin to our essence. If you do not differentiate yourselves from sexuality and from spirituality, and do not regard them as an essence both above and beyond you, you are delivered over to them as qualities of the Pleroma. Spirituality and sexuality are not your qualities, not things you possess and encompass. Rather, they possess and encompass you, since they are powerful daimons, manifestations of the Gods, and hence reach beyond you, existing in themselves. No man has a spirituality unto himself or a sexuality unto himself. Instead, he stands under the law of spirituality and of sexuality. Therefore no one escapes these daimons. You shall look upon them as daimons, and as a common task and danger, a common burden that life has laid upon you. Thus life, too, if for you a common task and danger, as are the Gods, and first and foremost terrible Abraxas. 

University of Metaphysics states as follows:

"Carl Jung, whom many believe was the greatest psychologist of the 20th century, thought that the lipido - something psychologists attributed solely to the sexual drive - was, in truth, the life force or urge to life itself. Mystics understand this urge to life itself as the urge to Universal Life, or God. As taught in schools of Tantric Yoga, this urge - at its highest level of human expression - can become a means to union with God or mystical enlightenment."

When I used to be Christian, I came to experience a connection between sexuality and spirituality, and not in a sense of "sin", but that of ecstasy and passion! Christian mystics had similar experiences. And think about the Song of Songs! 

Sangharakshita, a Buddhist teacher, sometimes accused of sexual misbehavior (plain fact that he had sexual relationships seems to be "misbehavior" for some), wrote - and I have to translate this passage from Finnish, the best I can, since I'm unable to find it online:

Man refuses to experience the sensations of the body, especially sensations related to sexuality. This refusal is often associated with a wrong kind of upbringing as a child. For example, I can see people who have been raised to the thought or such a vague feeling that the body is somehow shameful, or at least not as noble, as highly revered as the mind. In the same way some people have been instilled with such an idea, that sexual feelings are sinful. All these kinds of thoughts and feelings stem from Christianity. Even though we have certainly in many ways outgrown Christianity, or at least outgrown dogma of Christianity and control of the Church, these attitudes are very widely spread, and still cause a lot of damage. We can count as one of  Wilhelm Reich's great merits that he has studied all this area very thoroughly, and he has shown quite clearly how preventing child's pleasant physical sensations may lead to a grown man denounce all one's life force in a crippling way.

One of the five precepts of Buddhism is to abstain from "sexual misconduct". But Buddha's ethics is not  about commands to be observed blindly. It must be interpreted in individual freedom. There is no fixed category for right and wrong; it depends on the situation and circumstances at hand. It's all about consenting adults, who agree on things and are happy about the way they are. Of course there is nothing wrong about sexual expression in its variety, unless it hurts someone. 

Weird thing about sex is, that it is such a small aspect of humanity, and yet so dominant from time to time. When you are "horny", voice of reason is shut down, and you follow a basic instinct. In a Buddhist sense, there is no sin, but of course there is attachment along with a desire. 

Naturally, cultural norms may vary in Buddhist countries as well, but that's another story, and not to be confused with the religion. It should be noted, however, that there is no consensus among Buddhists over these matters, and that is precisely because the five precepts are nothing like ten commandments! It is so apparent that whenever Christians talk about morals, they always refer to sexuality above all, and seem to be quite obsessed with an issue! 

The longest I've been celibate, was three months after my former partner died, and obviously that means no masturbation either!
It was not the first time, and my experience is that it soon starts to run smoothly on its own. Once your mind is no longer constantly obsessed with sexual images, you feel so serene. Since I was not planning to stay that way for the rest of my life, and as I was already in love with someone new, while there was no need to force myself to celibate, I had to force myself to end it. It was so easy, almost natural, even if one must argue that celibacy in fact is NOT natural. Sex drive is natural. There was a point in my life when I thought I was on a gray area of asexuality, but today I can say I'm in fact a very sexual person - much more sexual than my partner. It may be a cause of frustration sometimes. 

Because of my history and my personality, I had my first sexual encounters only at the age of 26. First, there was this Japanese boy, Masaki, whom I had a crush on, and he seemed to respond to my feelings. We didn't have "normal" sex, but BDSM, and I was the submissive party. It was very, very pleasureful; he only needed to hint if we went to "play", and it was like electricity going through my body. However, it requires, to me at least, such a special chemistry, that I have never wanted to go there with anyone else. That relationship burnt out just as fast as it was lit; my feelings turned to hate, and I left without goodbyes. He didn't seem to get a hint, and I heard him denying there ever was anything between us. Everybody worshiped him, but I got so close I started to see through him: he was very two-faced person - charming face to face, and saying the meanest things behind your back. I suspect our relationship was a little unbalanced anyway. 

Under his influence, however, I also started to go to gay night club. If anything, I must thank him for the courage to  finally come to terms with my sexual orientation and taking first steps to come out. First I felt such a freedom in that atmosphere. It didn't take long until I got tired. Unfortunately, I was and I have always been completely hopeless with the art of flirtation. I don't even notice when it happens, and I can't do it myself. Only few men had guts to make a direct move on me. That's when I learnt I was good looking; I was bullied at School and my self-esteem was crushed for many years; I thought nobody could like me. 

Then I met my partner-to-be. The whole impulse for "hunting" men came from Masaki, who was constantly looking for girls (no, he was not gay - and unlike he liked to think, I came to conclusion he was not bi either!), and at that point I really wanted someone to push him aside from my life. It was not love at first sight, and I was torn within, because of my own inner contradictions. It was long and painful process. I had mixed and obscure motives. Maybe I grew to love my partner gradually, as I always used to say - or was it just an excuse to stay anyway - but even though he was cute, he was not exactly my type (neither was I his). At that time I really would have needed an active manly top man who knows what he's doing. He was top alright, but that's all. We did lose our virginity to one another, but I don't remember anything specific. I do remember better fooling around with some random dudes. 

Nevertheless, we ended up being together for nearly 19 years, til the day he died, and our sex life was never active. For the last years it was already dead... just like my love for him, I'm afraid. In the end I think I never was the one he thought I was, or maybe I just changed. It was not the love story of the century, even if we both wanted to believe that. 

In my 30's I had a kind of crisis and I cheated on him four times with two different guys within a month. The first guy was only 19 and very hot, but I couldn't fuck him; maybe it was a pressure of situation, or maybe it was a condom - I have never used one before or after (I have fucked two men so far - both of them several times during many years; I knew them and trusted them. I'm sorry, but I do prefer barebacking anytime!). The other one... well, it was getting too serious, so I decided I didn't want that. 

I kept it a secret for two years, which was not hard for me to do, until my partner cheated on me one night, and he couldn't keep it to himself; I didn't want him to think he was worse than me. I wanted to hear all the details, and it only aroused me. We were able to talk about it and it strengthened our relationship then. 

Years later we were talking about threesome, and one night he brought a cute Thai boy home. I like Asian boys, but I was not really excited about it at the time, because it was just too much of a surprise, and suddenly my partner seemed to lose his interest, leaving me with a boy. I blew him, only because he wanted to - not that I was very turned on. My problem exactly: to please others, no matter what  I want. Then my partner got jealous: he started to shout and smash the doors, the boy left, and yet it was him who started it in the first place. 

And then there was my partner's old friend... let's call him Jerry - not a Finnish name obviously. We were introduced at the same year I met my partner, and interaction between us was just awkward; if we were left alone in a room, we remained quiet. 

However, when the two of them were drunk, Jerry told my partner he would like to lick me all over,  and when I heard that, I got so aroused that since then it was my primary fantasy to be with him! He was very masculine, but he was also lying, cheating, stealing, picking a quarrel. Not a trustworthy person at all! Yet somehow I think that was a part of his attractiveness. He was a bad boy. 

Years and years went by. Once we were all three drinking and playing "truth or dare", I dared him to drop his pants and show himself all around. He did the same to me. My partner even said to me privately, that he might allow me to fuck him, but not vice versa. 

Then there was a time when I went to sauna with him (and in Finland we usually do it completely naked, you know), and my partner even encouraged him. He was just happy to see us getting along.  While sitting there I said to him, "Looks good"; such a short comment, and yet so meaningful.

One time my partner even asked him to taste my dick in front of him, and after short hesitation, he did. Just a taste.  

Once I was very drunk, and pulled his dick out and sucked it briefly, while two other gay men were watching and my partner was in a toilet. 

Finally, we had a big apartment in the center of the city, and we took him as our subtenant as he was homeless. I don't remember exactly how, but at some point I willingly and knowingly started to seduce him, and one time my partner was out, he invited me to his room. We were sitting on the couch side by side, and started kissing (he was a good kisser!). We ended up in 69. 

I would have liked to do it again, but he rejected me. Perhaps it was his guilty conscience. And since he was also a difficult person, always causing trouble and raising arguments with my partner, it was hard for me to deal with him and I came around. For my partner he was a guaranteed drinking companion, both of them being alcoholics, given that my partner would pay. They really deserved one another. 

After many years from our "incident", he was no longer living with us, when I started to chat with him online. One time he was with my partner at our balcony, using his phone, while I was inside with my computer. He even invited me to sauna with him, but cancelled that with obvious excuse. 

Then my partner died. (See "Through Death to Love".) 

Soon after that Jerry told me he was afraid he was going to be the next one. He refused to come to the funeral, using harsh words, and other people were more offended on my behalf than I was; I understood a kind of anger was his way of dealing with sorrow he couldn't handle in any other way. 

I moved to my own apartment with private sauna, and soon started to look for company online. Jerry offered to join me for sauna, and I even made sure he understood I wanted sex! But then all the sudden I fell in love. After I moved again (temporarily) to same town with my new boyfriend, one nigh Jerry called me - he had never done that before. He was drunk, obviously, and said he will love me forever! I was stunned, and could only mumble that I had always had feelings for him too. "Feelings" of lust, that is. Jerry was never actually even a friend to me, he was an object of desire. Even when he grew fatter and became "uglier" (he looked much older than me, and he was few years younger), I still wanted him. I must have been the last man who wanted him - too bad he didn't appreciate that fact enough. When my late partner grew fatter, I liked his appearance less and less, and I told him I always liked his personality anyway. There was nothing likable about Jerry's personality in the first place. 

We moved back to my old home town, and one night Jerry invited me to his place, and I drove as fast as I could before he would change his mind. Almost as soon as I entered his home, he grabbed me and we started kissing and caressing each other, and took off our clothes. I sucked him, and then he fucked me, I was moaning; he was only the second man ever to do that. That was on December 2017. It was very satisfying to me, but as always, he didn't want to do it again. I told my partner about it, and he was fine with it; Jerry even visited us soon afterwards. 

In 2019, few months after I had a heart surgery, he told on Facebook that he had had a heart attack. I didn't believe him. He had a history of lying about his health, seeking for attention. Once he told he had a cancer, and I made him to apologize that to me, before he could visit us again. In the beginning of 2020 he seemed to vanish from Facebook, and didn't answer my message. I began to suspect he might be dead. A mutual friend finally called civil registry, and it became official that he had passed away in January. Nobody knew that, so nobody has been to his funeral, which in a way is just fair if you think about his attitude when my late partner died. 

I have not shed a tear for him. In fact, speculations about his possible death were a cause of joking and laughter between me and our mutual friend (no disrespect), before it was confirmed. If you want to be mourned after you're gone, you must live in a manner that you will be missed. It's a custom to say only nice things about the deceased, but I really don't know what to say about him. The dead won't suddenly turn to angels. 

I'm surrounded by tragic destinies and lives ending too early. I almost feel guilt for my own life, but the world is not rotating around me. Each of us has a story of our own, even if they momentarily pass by one another. In this story there are two other stories included, but perspective is all mine. In its own weird way it is an obituary, even though someone might say it disparages the deceased. But doesn't it actually tell about me? It's not about their lives, but about my relationship to them. Now five years after my partner's death, I see our relationship from a better perspective, but it's no use to dig up dirt: what's done is done, and what's gone is gone - nothing can change it anymore. I love my present partner probably more than I ever loved my late partner - this time it was love before the first sight -  and we are genuinely happy together. 

What's the moral of the story, you might ask. Well, there isn't one. I'm not ashamed of myself.  I started this by stating that I'm not a saint, neither I'm a good person or a bad person: I am the whole human being. Vices and virtues always coexist, and neither are good or bad in themselves. I refuse to restrict myself to certain role expected by others. I want to better myself, and my relation to other people in particular, but being a monk is not required! 

I can count all the men with whom I've had any kind of sex during my life, even once, with the fingers of my two hands. So I could conclude that my "naughtiness scale" is extremely low. Not by my choice, though. In a way I wish I had been more "slutty" in my youth, but maybe I've been protected from (more) bad choices and harmful experiences. So, basically it is bold to tell you all this, and yet I have to admit it's not much. Now that I am down to earth spiritually, next I should expect to be liberated bodily.

It is my problem that I tend to think with my brain, not only with my dick. So there has to be a kind of mutual understanding, that we are on the same page, so to speak. As an introvert, I would find it very exhausting to meet always someone new, a complete stranger. I need to feel safe. That's why the idea of friends with benefits/fuck buddy is more appealing to me than casual sex with random guys.

I like many kinds of men, from young in their 20's to my age, thin and chubby, smooth and hairy, Caucasian, Asian, Black, bottom or versatile (like myself). Physical "perfection" is not my thing. I don't think there is anything personal about athletic model types - they could be made of plastic. 

 Neither is a big dick necessary to me - who wants to meet a dick? Once you have seen one dick pic, you have seen them all. Pleasant face is more important, and I like to see the pictures of full body, especially butt. Oral sex is just a foreplay to me, I enjoy a good fuck, giving or receiving, not to forget kissing and cuddling, not just humping all the way. I also like to rim, and I don't expect that done to me. 

See also:

Buddhism and Sex

Sexxxuality; Against the Stream; A Buddhist Manual for Spiritual Revolutionaries