New Revelations

 I am 53 years old this year, and I'm still learning new things about myself. Is it possible to ever know yourself completely, I sincerely doubt it. Today you are not who you were yesterday, rebirth is constantly going on even in one lifetime. The change is the only permanent thing in life: when there is movement, there is life. If you stop evolving, you are already dead. 

I'm always willing to receive new information and correct my perception, instead of stubbornly clinging to the old. My whole life is witness for that. And if you look around and keep your ears open, you will easily notice that not so many people are capable of that. 

Demisexuality

Last year I gained some valuable new insight. First of all, could it be that I am Demisexual? Wikipedia article at the time of writing this, says as follows: 

"Demisexuality is a sexual orientation in which a person feels sexually attracted to someone only after they've developed a close/strong emotional bond with them..." [...] "How much Demisexuals need to know about a person before they feel sexually attracted to them varies from person to person. There is no specific timeline on how long it takes, either. There is also no way to determine what qualifies as a close or strong bond, which can cause confusion." [...] "Many Demisexuals may choose to engage in casual sex even without experiencing sexual attraction towards their sexual partner." 

That would certainly explain a lot. Basicly, I'm very open and liberal about sexuality: I hate moralism, and in my fantasies I can be anything, but in the real world it is a different matter. I have often emphasized in various contexts the role of emotions in my life. In my experience I don't need to have a crush on person, let alone fall in love with them: it's enough that I know them even for a little while, and like them as a person. Of course good looks also help. That eliminates casual sex, and sex on the first meeting in general. (It's not impossible, though. I've had my share, long time ago, and it was very dissatisfying to me.) "Friends with benefits" sounds good to me! 

Also, plain banging is not pleasing; there has to be tenderness, kissing and fondling involved. Intimate connection between two people should never be meaningless, otherwise why have it in the first place. It has nothing to do with morals. I almost envy those who can exchange partners just like that. I just don't feel comfortable and safe in such a situation with random stranger. In my marriage I have a freedom and permission, but I have used it only twice years ago, with two different men. (And it seems my spouse is very much like myself, with respect to sexuality as well!) So one time is okay if other conditions are met, and romantic relationship or monogamy is not necessary. It's not like there have been many opportunities during these years, so it's not really my decision. There is obviously always individual variation within human sexuality, so nobody can tell me my experience is wrong, because it is not precisely like theirs! 

Self-nude from the 1990's

Demisexuality is on the Asexuality spectrum, and that first bothered me, because I felt I'm actually very sexual person, but the fact is, I've had different phases, and I know I can celibate quite easily. Also, recently when I read my old diaries from the 1990's (I was in my 20's back then), I just realized I didn't even miss or look for love or relationship at that age; all I wanted was pure and honest friendship. I had my first sexual experiences at 27, and soon after I met my partner to be: not because I really wanted to, but because of peer pressure. At the end of the day I can say that sex is not the most important thing in the world! 

It's not like I want a less known, fancy label. It's hard to accept that I'm anything but "just a regular gay", or that Demisexuality is independent sexual orientation, as it seems to be seen. I am what I am anyway. But it may summarise your individual experience of your sexuality, and it only says what I have always known. Yet I have to explain what it means to me. I have been part of that old school, wondering why all these increased self-definitions; as if people want to be categorized in ever smaller groups. But maybe you understand it when you find yourself in one of those groups, and realize that this is how some people experience - I'm not the only one. These categories did not spring out of nowhere. 

See also one of my previous posts, "I love gay sex!"

Late partner

I have another older post, "Sex, Love, Marriage", which I think is frequently read, but it is partially dated, especially regarding my late partner and our relationship. I used to underrate emotions, simply because I had never fallen in love with him! That's why I had to emphasize reason, and make up an excuse that we gradually grew to love one another... I guess I actually managed to make myself believe that, because I needed to justify our relationship... It was in my head, more than in my heart. I didn't even know what love is, so I just made up a rational concept of it - and there's nothing rational about it! I was kind of driven to relationship with him in the first place, it was very complicated; several external factors were at play, and I was vulnerable and under the influence of strong personalities. And it was also because of him that I was even homing in on Christianity - as if I forced myself to believe in that too. 

We ended up being together almost 19 years, "til death did us part". Now, spiritual-minded people often tend to believe everything happens for a reason, everything has a meaning. I guess it's more convenient than to admit that you have wasted years of your life in vain. I tried to please him, avoided conflict, got used to it, feared change, and worried for him. Obviously he had his faults too (emotional blackmail was used: no difficult stuff could be discussed, because he got depressed, and he made it clear that he would be crushed if he lost me), but I can't blame him: it was me and only me who stayed til the end, being dishonest to myself, and to him. 

It is very hard to live with someone depressed, and when you add alcoholism, you are deep in the shit. No one should blame themselves if they can't go on. It is not right to sacrifice your own life for someone else, you can't save them anyway. You can think about yourself first. Maybe we were a couple that shouldn't be, but it becomes more complicated if you think about it... without him, would I have stayed with my mother in the country, and as a member of narrow-minded cult? I was in dire straits both physically and mentally, so obviously because of my partner great liberation also came about, along with pain and conflict. I can't deny that. 

When I later converted to Buddhism, it came up as by itself, naturally, from within. Even though I first learnt the chant, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, through Tina Turner, I still use my own voice, if you get what I mean: There is something learned, but also something of my own, that I express out loud. Something universal as well as something personal. And it is my Buddha Nature I call forth, not Savior from Heaven. I was matured enough for Buddhism, just like I was finally mature for true love, and found the love of my life only in latter age. These two things seem to go hand in hand in my life.  

Introversion

I listened to Finnish podcast about extroverts and introverts. They interviewed a personality researcher, and it was mind-blowing! I have also taken a popular conception of introversion lying down, but reading comments on Facebook group for introverts, I have often thought, "I'm not that introverted!" I couldn't identify with the group of people who consider themselves introverts either. Often their ideas appear to be too simplified: "Because I'm an introvert, I'm like this, and can't do that..." In fact, it seems that being an introvert is similar to being Aquarius, and I do recognize a lot of typical characteristics of Aquarius in myself! Following thoughts are from the podcast... 

In the world of memes, introversion has become cool. There is a rise of introversion as a cultural backlash for hyping extroverts. Many people firmly believe that we are either introverts or extroverts. Modern research does not support this idea. Most of us are something in between. In the light of scientific personality psychology, extroversion/introversion is a dimension of features, and most people are placed somewhere in the middle. There are very few real introverts and extroverts, and categorizing  people in two groups does not correspond to scientifically based conception of personality psychology. People can not be dealt as categories, but as dimensions and their combinations. 

Even the original developer of these concepts, Carl Jung, did not think that people divide in two extreme ends. He wrote that most people are ambiverts, or something in between. Already in the 1960's it was noted that features of personality and behavior in individual situation don't interrelate very much. Larger proportion of variation (approximately 70%) in sociability and extroversion takes place within a person than between persons. Each one of us, regardless of our place in extroversion/introversion dimension, behaves constantly in everyday life in really extroverted and really introverted ways, and everything in between. 

Being energetic is already part of extroversion, one of its subfeatures. Do introverts get tired of socialization more than extroverts, that has been studied, and there is no evidence. All people may get tired of socialization to some extent, there are no differences between introverts and extroverts in the light of current knowledge. 

People may explain their social withdrawal by introversion, but results of extroverted behavior are the same for both, extroverts and introverts. There is a lot of good research about extroverted behavior making us happy, and it involves everyone. According to some researches, benefits for introverts may be even greater. 

Introvert and extrovert are no longer only scientific concepts, their meaning has broadened. If people use them to explain and understand themselves, that is a good thing. They have become social identities that people adopt to explain their behavior for themselves and for others. But if you lock your identity within these categories, you can miss out many things, you can evaluate the results of various action falsely. Features of our personality don't determine our behavior! Our behavior varies a lot according to situation. 

Well-known Myers-Briggs test has no scientific basis whatsoever. If people feel that combination of letters they receive, represents them, there's nothing wrong with that, but this test should not be used in recruiting, or anything like that, when it has real consequences for people. 

I have often determined that my spouse must be an ambivert, because in different situations he can be extremely extroverted or extremely introverted, but it looks like if he is that, then so am I. Last New Year one of his Facebook friends with their partner, whom we have briefly met, invited us at their home. But my spouse was bothered by the fact that we don't know them well enough. I understand completely. Problem is, how could we ever learn to know anyone well enough, if we don't give it a chance? We are rarely invited anywhere, because we don't know many people. 

Introversion and Friendship (and Buddhism)

 It is a constant paradox of my life: being an introvert, I enjoy alone-time, and because I'm married to someone who's more likely an ambivert, I don't always get to be alone as much as I would like to be. That said, I am thankful for my partner because he has chosen me and stays by my side. We are each other's best friends too. My late partner was extremely extroverted, yet he gave me space - so much space, that finally there was nothing else between us. And I doubt if I could get along with another introvert very well, since there are different states of introversion - we're not all alike: When I read online forum of introverts, I often note, "I'm not THAT introverted"! And it's hard for me to deal with my own mother, who's very introverted, because I feel I have to pull every word out of her. My partner seems very extroverted with me and other people he knows, but if we meet new people who start talking to us, it is I who tries to fulfill "obligations of courtesy" for both of us. The very fact that I'm in my second long-term relationship may be exceptional for introvert. You can sometimes read that the Finns in general are introverted; maybe compared to Americans, for example (I would hate that "how are you"-culture!), but as an introvert living in Finland, I'm still surrounded mostly by extroverts. 

When I was young, I used to suffer from loneliness. Now I have precisely four friends: one of them, whom I have known for longest time, lives so faraway that last time I've seen her was in the 90's; we speak on the phone couple of times a year. Two of my friends I kind of inherited from my late partner, and two of them have also become mutual friends for me and my present partner. That is all of our social circle, together and separately. I don't meet my friends - or we don't meet them - very often. Sometimes I would like to have more friends, but life has shown me you really can't make friends (that's semantics, but we don't say like that in Finnish - it sounds weird to me; changes the meaning of the sentence altogether. Finnish equivalent, "ystävystyä", passes on the idea of becoming friends for one another; it's not something you do). Rather, life rarely brings friends on your way. And just like romantic love isn't always forever, same goes with friendship too. How could it be otherwise? Friends have come and gone. Friendships may also transform. 

It seems to me that extroverts have broader definitions for friendship, that's why they may have so many "friends" - whom I would never call that. I don't even have many Facebook friends (that's the only social media platform I use), and if I don't know them in real life too, they certainly are not real friends! From young age, I have always categorized people in my life in three different groups: There are obviously true friends, the chosen few - inner circle, whom you can trust; then there are buddies, those you can hang out with, or talk this and that; and finally acquaintances, people you distantly know, and greet when you see them coincidentally. You can't blend these groups. 

I did have American online friend, whom I had fascinating conversations with, until he died (his niece contacted me) - and it really touched me; he became more than just some random guy to me. But I have watched TV-show Catfish, and it really strikes me how naive people can be. I'm very sceptical about people I may meet online, until proven otherwise. I hope you understand. This is not to say you shouldn't contact me - I wish you would anyway! Nowadays hardly anyone does. 

As an introvert I have experienced, that using a foreign language (English, that is) somehow changes my personality - it affects my mind so that it is easier for me to be active in conversation (though I may be a little rusty in speaking English). There are actually researches to support this phenomenon. I wish I could speak Spanish in order to get some of that temperament in me. 

I have web camera, and I must say I am hesitant to use it, but of course that is the most reasonable way to communicate. That is the closest thing to meeting face to face, after all. I feel I'm able to express myself better (in any language) in writing, but chatting in real time is not my thing: I find it awkward to deal with it like a proper conversation, as if we were talking face to face; I want to think what I write, not just churn out the stream of consciousness despite of spelling and grammar. However, when you miss nonverbal communication, facial expressions etc., misunderstandings are more likely to occur. And of course it's also easier to fake it all, if you don't see each other. Technology may distort live interaction between people. 

I have started to notice the downside of practicing Buddhism on your own, without support by others. There is research to suggest that meditation and yoga make you self-absorbed. I also found this interesting writing, titled, "why are Buddhists such assholes?" I must add that believers of all Faiths (and none) can be assholes; any religion can be used to justify your "assholeness", and personally I have met many Christian assholes. I'm not immune myself to this baggage. As a Buddhist I struggle with selfishness and a lack of compassion: perhaps it is Buddhism that makes me aware of these traits within me. Anyhow, it is a bit problematic that I only practice alone, and I can't even talk with anyone else who's practicing. Now I can understand why it is sometimes warned that your practice may become self-centered if you do it all alone. I thought it was the claim by which Buddhist organizations made themselves necessary. Still I see the shadows of organization - and where I live, there is no choise: it is SGI or nothing - darker than the light it may shine. I don't want one and only "official" Gohonzon bestowed by them, and nobody coming to my home checking that I set up my altar correctly by their rules. Already that is too much for me. 

Truth is, I have never been to SGI meetings, I don't know any members. I have only read about them, so I can't really tell. But as I am quite experienced on my spiritual journey by this age, I have come to conclusion I rather avoid formal groups. If there was anything like Gay Buddhist Fellowship or UU Buddhist Fellowship Sangha available in Finland, gathering Buddhist practitioners from various schools rather than forming a school of its own, I would certainly be interested! 

Rather than just as Buddhist, I want to be met as human being, including my sexual orientation, and with my flaws. I hate to pretend I'm better man or more "spiritual" than I am. That is a pressure and unspoken expectation you can often feel in religious circles. Of course I do have a desire to better myself, to be less selfish and more compassionate. I start to realize it is harder the more you are on your own, and the less you are doing with other people. 

See also:

Psychology Today: The Buddha was an Introvert

Lion's Roar: Making Friends on the Buddhist Path

LONESOME PATH

This is continuation to previous writings, DISILLUSIONED - ENGLIGHTENED, and CHANGES.

When I observe other spiritual or religious (I used to be "religious", now I'm rather "spiritual"!) people I know, it seems to me their spiritual life remains steady, in a sense that whether there are ups and downs - and who wouldn't have those? - they always keep their basic belief system anyway.

That is not the case with me. My spiritual life has had as many as THREE major turns. And I really mean everything turned upside down. I have told some details in this blog before, but I may have to repeat some and complete the story. 

As a child and young boy I believed in God, but Jesus was a distant figure to me. As a teenager, I got interested in Spiritualism. In my 20's I became a New Age geek. Then I got deeply involved with the gnostic mystery school, Lectorium Rosicrucianum, and that I count as my first major turn, because everything I had believed so far, changed radically, and very quickly - I took everything I was taught for granted, and didn't question any of it: homosexuality was wrong, meditation was dangerous, all churches should be avoided, and so on. World view of LR is esoteric, but practically it's more like extremely conservative and inward sect, like that of Jehovah's Witnesses.

After I met my partner, I could no longer keep going that road; I was looking for help, and I found it from The Christian Community: so I became a liberal Christian (esoterist). That was the second major turn: again I had to change my world view altogether, but this time it didn't just happen - I kind of had to force it; consequently, for the first few months I was like wandering in the desert, feeling no connection with God or other people. But then I felt like I had finally incarnated in this world and accepted my part as a being of this earth. And my newly found faith carried me over some really hard times - other people witnessed that I radiated light, I had inner light even in the middle of hardship. 

For ten years I was dedicated and active member of my congregation, but gradually in recent years things started to change again, this time slowly and by themselves. I no longer found joy in participating in church activities as I used to do, and I withdrew from many of them. All along I had many ambitions of my own - leading a prayer and discussion group and creating a website. Then came that final strike I report in my post, DISILLUSIONED - ENGLIGHTENED. I never really got over that - it stripped me off all my remaining idealism and opened my eyes to see the bare reality of human nature. Obviusly, that was not something completely new to me; it was a burden increased during all my life, until it was too much to bear and pretend it is not there. Starting from my 20's when I was extremely naive and unknowing, over-excited when making new friends - I've never had many - and expecting too much from them, I have become rather cynical. A cynical realist, as I would say. I have become convinced that you can't expect much from people, because no one really gives a shit! And so I don't give a shit anymore. Or maybe I do - too much - and that exactly is a problem! In my darkest moments I wish humanity would be destroyed, and there would be no life after death whatsoever.

Is it any wonder that Satan has entered my world, along with Christ, and not as adversary but as coequal "deity". Here I have found useful clarification from theology of the Process Church of the Final Judgment. (When I study some philosophy profoundly, I tend to become one with it, at least for a while.)  It is not about belief; it's just logical structure to work with. Satan brings separation, Christ is Unifier; man's task is to reconcile Satan with Christ through love, "to save God" who fragmented himself while creating the world, so that GOD can be reborn.
My dark side is very strong, and I don't think I can do any good by denying or rejecting it. Neither I can abandon Christ - so they just have to get along! It's like demon and angel within me in passionate and violent embrace. People talk about left-hand path and right-hand path, but it's difficult to live with only one hand, isn't it? For me, it's not about choosing one or the other; it's about unification, finding peace and love between the two. (See also my former post, "Satan loves you!")
Also, Satan obviously appeals to me because of rebellious nature associated with him, now that I have broken my ties with formal Christianity and Church institution, and as I have always rebelled against human norms. Yet I'm very conscientious and dutiful person; I have to be strong and I have to take care of everything. Part of me is tired and wants to let go. But I can not. I must carry on for others dependent on me.

The following quote was taken from forum of The Sect of the Horned God, and it resonates with my way of thinking:

"Deities (or gods, demons, whatever) are aspects of the human mind, or psyche if you like to sound all educated and posh. They do not exist in a literal or abstract sense, at least not in the physical meaning. They are not real on an objective level (obviously), but they are very real inside the mind of a person and do not rule the mind but are a part of it.
They exist as focal points of different aspects of our personality and when used in myth, are magnified parts of human behavior and human emotion. In short, gods are personified emotions and impulses, symbolic representations of parts of ourselves.
Now this is just what I perceive them to be. But they also have a use, else they would not exist, or at least, nobody would bother giving them a name and talking about them. Gods help us in two ways. Firstly, they help us understand ourself and the world around us. To do so, people have created myths to give gods a backdrop to show us what they are about and what their goals are. These myths are nothing more than generalized experiences or perhaps dreams people had long ago and simplified and generalized down into a form that was usable for everyone. With that, we come to the second use of gods, exploring our inner selves, both our subconscious as well as the conscious parts of ourselves we do not know, have repressed or simply do not understand. In this respect, gods are useful as focal points, guides that help us on the path to discovering, understanding and developing ourself. We might use them in rituals and at that time suspend our disbelief and chant incantations, pray to them or bring them offerings to strike a bargain or ask them to do something for us. While at that time we disconnect ourselves from the real world and for the purpose of the ritual may believe in them (even though in the back of our head we still know they aren't real), we only use them at that time to connect with ourselves. Because gods are a part of ourselves, this means of communication makes it easier to connect with our subconscious. This is the same reason why symbols and certain mythological concepts are understood by people from around the world in largely the same manner, because it speaks to a part of ourselves that we normally aren't able to come in contact with, but which is nevertheless very potent and has a very big influence on the way we lead our lives. I suppose you could say they are the lense through which our subconscious sees the outer world and function both as windows to see into our subconscious and as a mirror to show us who we really are."

Even I'm not sure if I'm just trying to refrain from making a final conclusion that I have actually become an agnostic. Still I rather define myself as Gnostic, which of course is basicly quite the opposite - but in modern usage it is highly ambiguous. See for example, "Are you a Gnostic?" , which is one of the loosest definitions I have seen. Contrary to that, Lectorium Rosicrucianum represents very pure and original Gnosticism with its sharp distinction between material world and Divine world - very strict doctrine. For me, gnosticism today rather means absolute freedom and individuality in matters of Spirit.

And to doubt the existence of God? I find myself incapable to do that. At least for now. Even though God may be so transcendent, mankind is left alone on earth and we have no choice but to make up these theological concepts and images trying to cope with this existential loneliness. So there are "lesser gods", or "manifested gods", we are dealing with, instead of The Absolute.

Basically, mine is a kind of "do-it-yourself-religion". When I think too much - and I do have a sad tendency for that - I may feel deep desperation for human condition, but when I just practice ritualistic devotion and meditation, I am connected with Higher Source (or that still point within, which is One with the Source); intellect separates and heart unites. Those who do not think, they don't see, and therefore they don't suffer so much. Suffering is inevitable companion for enlightenment, for seeing more clear. I often find myself asking that classical question: "Am I crazy or is everyone else crazy?"
I guess it has everything to do with my fundamental characteristics - being an introvert. It very much defines who I am as a person. There was a time I was desperately seeking for connection with other people through spiritual groups; I can not deny sometimes I was succesful, usually within some common meditative setting; but mostly, time after time I was disappointed. Now I have come to understand that I don't need community; weakness of spiritual community is more or less required common belief system, doctrinal unity. I can not share that with anyone. As satanist Diane Vera so well puts it, "If a group of people agree on the idea that 'there shall be no dogmas,' then that idea in itself has thereby become a group dogma -- or, more precisely, a metadogma (a dogma about dogmas). Furthermore, whenever any group of people gets together for any common purpose whatsoever, that common purpose is a group dogma. But there are many things that a united group of people can accomplish which its individual members couldn't accomplish (at least not nearly as easily) all by themselves. So, an absolute prohibition on dogma  -  if it were logically possible  -  would severely limit human achievement."
My path is lonesome, and so be it. There have always existed hermits who practice their spirituality in solitude, apart from human society, yet interceding for all mankind. I have read it is easier to "love all people" if you stay away from them - in my experience that sounds understandable.  I don't need to isolate myself from the society - wilderness of my mind is enough. The best discussions I've always had with myself, in my mind.
And when you connect with The Divine, isn't there invisible connection with other people who connect with The Divine as well? "The communion of saints", as the Apostles' Creed puts it, be they living or dead. And I don't think it knows any boundaries of Faith either. This is what the plural form of The Our Father is referring to, and "When two or three are gathered in my Name..." does not necessarily mean in one place at the same time. (This poem of mine, called "Sorrowful Role of Humanity", depicts my feelings very well; it was inspired - came through me without much thinking. You might think it's gloomy, but I see a glimpse of hope there after all.)
When I practice, I don't "believe" something - I AM present in the presence of The Divine. There is neither belief or disbelief at that time, just being; openness and receptivity. Certain images and ideas are enlivened, and it's like opening a window to spiritual realm; for a short moment, reality becomes transparent for the otherworldly.