Lucifer & Nirvana

[Bruce Michael]

Hi All,


The "Father" experience and Nirvana are one and the same. When we are at one with the Father, our "I" merges with His. We enter a sphere of "bliss, immersed in the beauteous oceans of dreaming".


This experience has to be veiled from us at the midnight hour in the state between life and death, (reference Tomberg) for who amongst us could resist slipping off the edge into the indescribable bliss of Nirvana? How many could again summon the courage to continue the task of world redemption?

Christ is the I Am, He brings us our "I ams". Permanent entrance into Nirvana brings to us an end of suffering, but also an end to development. This is the wish of Lucifer; so it is not hard to understand why some see him as the true benefactor of Humankind as he wishes for us an end to all suffering in a state of permanent anaesthesia. This might be seen as a matter of philosophy also.

"Were they to have entered with their egos intact and their self-conscious exactment, they may have marvelled at the light-waves and the sublimity therein; choosing too, that moment of peak saturation, whereby so filled, they may pull back into the living realms and re-establish the relationships and karmas as are waiting. But for the soul who has advanced back to the original Paradisical determination, the Nirvanic oceans are perilously consuming, for there is no will or want for anything more, and the soul is satisfied to dream into eternity."

"Through a weakened ego state, not being self-realized and self-conscious themselves, followers of these Indian Gurus perceive what should be direct revelations, through the person of their Guru.

"Their followers bring to them the power of the accelerated push, for it is as a submission of ego in such devotion. A willing - for there may be no other way - submission of self, confusing the revelations as invoked to be the same as the teacher who is invoking. Thus they will tell you that so and so is the World and is the Christ, when it is but a falsehood - an incredible one at that, to say so."

-The Brothers

It can happen, and in some quarters does happen, that the whole world is attributed to "Lucifer this" or "Satan that". One hears of "that eurythmy company is controlled by Lucifer or this particular person is Satan". These kind of observations can only lead to a pessimistic world outlook which is death the soul.


Sure, where there is light there is shadow, but we don't need to give the majority of our attention to the shadow. Looking for the Good is nourishment for the soul and so we must bear this in mind when taking L. and S. out of their respective boxes.


As our Teachers have observed:

"Arguably, such speak about Lucifer may be as delightful as a box of chocolates - however, the student is asked to go cautiously into this subject and retain due solemnity.

"See what befalls when he is invoked! The careless, unloving demeanor. He is critical, bitchy-critical, he is farcical and uses laughter to scorn with unfair, unkind spar. This not what we would have ourselves be? Let us love with intensity and divulge the depths of an adequate seriousness. Beware of the frivolity of Lucifer for he is the grandest time-waster of all Humanity."

-Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Hi again, Bruce ...

Interesting, if one condiers Eckhart the mystic of a 'Christian nirvana' if one might deploy such a term (and I suppose one might,, but I would believe it to be erroneous).

In his '24 Signs of the True Ground', in No1 he says this:
"... Balaam was so clever he understood what God for many hundred years had been trying to reveal. This was but little help to him because he lacked true love. And Lucifer, the angel, who is in hell, had perfectly pure intellect and to this day knows much. He has the more hell pain and all because he failed to cleave with love and faith to what he knew... "

Thomas

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi again, Bruce ...

Interesting, if one condiers Eckhart the mystic of a 'Christian nirvana' if one might deploy such a term (and I suppose one might,, but I would believe it to be erroneous).

In his '24 Signs of the True Ground', in No1 he says this:
"... Balaam was so clever he understood what God for many hundred years had been trying to reveal. This was but little help to him because he lacked true love. And Lucifer, the angel, who is in hell, had perfectly pure intellect and to this day knows much. He has the more hell pain and all because he failed to cleave with love and faith to what he knew... "

Thomas

Dear Br. Thomas,

thank you for your observations.
The difference between the Christian Mystic entering Nirvana, and those who are just purely spiritually selfish (the theosophists refer to them as the Pratyekas) is that Christian enters out of necessity, for healing and rest from his labours- it is due reward. Also the Christian Mystic has built a strong sense of self which doesn't dissolve easliy. And he builds this sense of self in this world.

The Luciferic dream is alluring and one can understand why some fall for it..


God Bless,
Br. Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce –

I think we should emphasise the fact that 'nirvana' is not the aim of Christian asceticism, nor can it really be applied to a Christian hermeneutic.

As the UA says:
"With respect to nirvana, this is the state of complete absence of the suffering entailed by earthly incarnation. If nirvana signified "void" pure and simple, and not the blessedness of pure being, no-one — including the Buddha himself — would be able to find in himself the considerable energy demanded by the moral and intellectual effort on the way which leads to nirvana. In order to make this effort, one has to want — and one cannot want the void, i.e. that where there is nothing to want... Buddhists want nothing more than the requies aeterna, the 'eternal rest' that the Christian prays for the soul of the departed. (MoTT: XII, p632.)

"For some everything finishes with death ... for others there is a 'beyond', an individual existence after death ... for others there is reincarnation ... Others again, see for the individual something beyond repeated incarnations, names the state of supreme peace of union with the eternal and universal Being (the state of nirvana). Lastly, there is a part of mankind whose existential horizon goes beyond the peace of union with God — it is resurrection which constitutes their spiritual horizon." (MoTT, XX, p556.)

It is evident that the UA saw the Kingdom of God as beyond nirvana (cf XI, p298). He treats of Jesus walking on the water as Christ transcending the nirvanic state (XII, p311 – although I consider the Hermetic reading of the miracle misses the scope and importance of a theological reading), in the same way that Genesis talks of the Divine Breath, ruach'elohiym, above the waters which represent the 'psychological as well as cosmic reality of nirvana' (MoTT, V, p103).

Pax,

Thomas

 

[Francis king]

...so Bruce, what ur saying is... lucifer wants us to go to nirvana because we then won't develop anymore, spiritually..?

if we follow ur conclusions, then Buddha too must be Lucifer..!

I hope thats not what ur saying...

according to my studies...

...the void is not nirvana, the void is sunyata, "he who is zero", "he that nought", often translated as "emptiness", yet this is a poor translation of something far more than nothing...

...traditionally Zero is not nothing- zero is the beyond, that beyond the One, not an absence of everything, but a manifestation without parameters, a something which has nothing to define it, and it is this which when experienced is described by yogi's and mystics as God, the numinous, and a realization of sunyata is described by those who experience such in much the same way ppl describe the traditional religious experience, the union with God...

nirvana is not a transcendental experience, but the cessation of duhkha, misery and misfortune, and something which we can all achieve in the here and now- according to buddhism if we live according to the teachings we can see the end of most of our miseries and misfortunes, but we do not see the end of life, we do not suddenly enter nirvana and die... this is just dusprayukta dharma- teachings which are badly arranged or composed...

or at least, this is my opinion...

we see designators like- void, emptiness, and we think of an absence- after all, that makes most sense, yet when ppl have a religious or transcendental experience, they do not speak of finding nothing- and I think that's the point...

the vastness, the lack of form, the lack of self, the lack of other, the lack of angles, the lack of words, the lack of numbers and concepts, yet-

that "that" isn't nothing, nor is it empty, nor is it void, for if it was, we would not be so impressed, surely?

yet, it is devoid of description, or adequate designators, we cannot easily define it, it is something which is beyond comprehension, but once u have seen it for urself u know that it exists... u have gnosis...

the ruach is but one part of a man's soul according to Judaism, or so I have heard... man has a nefesh, a ruach, and a neshimah, his consciousness, his spirit (his breath), and his holy soul, is how it was described to me...

what is fascinating about this is...

according to buddhism, there are three bodies of a buddha, the dharmakaya, the sambhogakaya, and the nirmanakaya, which roughly translate as- that which makes the teachings (consciousness), that which makes complete enjoyment (the inner winds are used here to generate bliss, ananda), and that which makes "that" beyond mind...(the bit that makes the magic, the holy soul...?)

funny too that this sambhogakaya is the result of manipulation of the inner winds, no different than breath, funny too that a person becomes something beyond his consciousness and his breath, and also that there is something beyond mind, and consciousness, and breath, yet although all us gnostics acknowledge this "that which is beyond mind" exists, we cannot agree what it is..

I feel that this description of the triple aspect of the soul and the triple aspect of the buddha describes the same thing- the process of the mystic, who first uses the teachings and purifies his consciousness, then comes the stirrings of the winds or the breath, (which interestingly enough is how Brahma is described in the upanisads, and this wind/breath/fire is also there as the Holy Spirit, too, at pentecost, I think) out goes the exhalation, the petition, the wish, the prayer, and hopefully from this comes union, we inhale the breath, and after this union a man then has the holy soul, the part which means some men can heal, and see the future, and where they recieve the other gifts which many saints and seers have described through the ages...

...of course, it might just be psychosis, but, oh, it's lovely...

 

[Thomas]

...of course, it might just be psychosis, but, oh, it's lovely...

Hi Francis — dare I say we can duet this one?:
O-o-oooh, they say 'psychosis' and we say 'theosis',
they say ...

come on, join in everybody!

Thomas

 

[Francis king]

lol thomas, new word for me, theosis! I will use it often!

 

[Bruce Michael]

Shalom Sr. Franics,
thank you for your input.


>so Bruce, what ur saying is... lucifer wants us to go to nirvana because >
>we then won't develop anymore, spiritually..?

Pretty much, that is how it is.
You see Prince Lucifer was against this creation to begin with. He is the jealous brother.

If you read what I posted on the Nephilim, it was the same with them. They not (Lucifer) are now "bound in chains" as per Jude.

What is your conception of Lucifer? I believe he will be redeemed.
Shiva as he is worshiped in India is the unredeemed Lucifer.

>if we follow ur conclusions, then Buddha too must be Lucifer..!

No the Buddha is part of my Christian conception. However some aspects of Buddhist teaching are Luciferic- conceptions of desire and suffering. The Christian does desire. We could go through the eight points on suffering and see how they have changed since the Incarnation.

For Example:

To be born is suffering.- No, for Christ entered into our Earth and henceforward for me, a Christian, to be born is no longer suffering.

-R. Steiner

>I hope thats not what ur saying...

I can post some more later if you like.

.

>...the void is not nirvana, the void is sunyata, "he who is zero", "he that nought", often translated as "emptiness", yet this is a poor translation of something far more than nothing...

Nirvana is not nothingness. Nothing is the absolute edge of Father God's Imagination.. Of course, beyond Nirvana is Paranirvana.

The "blown out" means the human ego- not the Divine ego.

The Buddha could dwell in Nirvana, but he is a Buddha of Compassion.

>according to buddhism, there are three bodies of a buddha, the >dharmakaya, the sambhogakaya, and the nirmanakaya, which roughly translate as- that which makes the teachings (consciousness),

Those three vestures- the Buddhic robes are described in the Voice of the Silence pp. 96,97.

"

Very little is publicly known of these transcendent Vestures, even by the Buddhists themselves, so that the accounbts we have in books of various Oriental scholars are contradictory and misleading."

The highest vesture is the Body of the Law Dharma-kaya. If this Vesture is assumed every possible connection with the earth is at an end, and therefore the Buddhas of Compassion lay it aside that they may still remain and work for humanity.

-G.R.S Mead, The World Mystery.


> (which interestingly enough is how Brahma is described in the upanisads, and this wind/breath/fire is also there as the Holy Spirit, too, at pentecost, >I think)

Atma- atmosphere.
Certain christian mystics have used the breath- T.L. Harris, Lawrence Oliphant, for example. I don't advise it. Mainly 'coz it's arse around.


Blessings,
Br.Bruce

 

[Francis king]

thanks for ur reply, bruce...

...how do I see Lucifer..?

...well, the traditionalist in me sees Lucifer as God's fave angel, the bearer of light, the most beautiful angel there ever was, who was seated on the left hand of the father, who inspired a rebellion in heaven and wanted to be worshipped as the supreme reality, and so there was a battle, Lucifer lost, and Lucifer was cast down onto the earth, to have dominion there, but...

...the psuedo-esotericist in me sees Lucifer as the father of gnosis, the saviour and redeemer rather than the devil incarnate, a maligned and misjudged being who desired freedom for it's own sake and challeged the authority of God and inspired man to be his true self, which the armchair anarchist in me finds appealing, yet...

...the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this concept of a light bearing angel who was in fact the devil was a clever ruse by the church fathers to ensure anyone who actually might be a non-catholic approved saint was instead made into a devil worshipping heretic...

...while the realist in me says that this Lucifer character doesn't exist, and never did, and suggests those same church fathers mentioned above exploited the naive peasants and used Lucifer/the devil as a convienient excuse, someone to blame when things went wrong and the reasons why seemed inexplicable, and also someone to be frightened of, which meant peasants would be good and go to church, which meant they'd stay in buisness...

...the devil gets blamed for a lot of things; pestilence, crop failure, AID's, mental illness, sexual depravity, gluttony, despair, and yet- why would such a beautiful and clever creature seek to cause so much mayhem..?

...how much easier things would be if instead man accepted responsibility for his own actions, learnt from these and moved on... but no... we still see devils...

... to mix up ur buddhism with ur christianity and have Lucifer as a being who didn't only mess about with the Christians but also buddhists seems a little, erm, daft, to me...

what if u don't think this being exists? am I just blind to him/it?

...as for Siva being Lucifer...

Siva has many aspects- his name means- the auspicious one... he is the giver of boons, the lord of ananda, he is a champion demon-slayer, the conqueror of death, the Lord of the meeting rivers, the consort of sakti, none of which are traditionally behaviours associated with the devil... yes, he likes snakes, yes, he likes a good fight and has his magical weapons, but this does not mean he is a demon... unless ur a edwardian catholic!

yes, when he is the conqueror of death he wears a garland of skulls, but that does not mean he's a head shrinker- u have to look past bathing the big phallus in milk and smearing urself in ash bits... Siva is no devil!

i find it strange u think of the buddha as "part of [your] Christian conception"... but then, of course, u become a theosophist...

"Those three vestures- the Buddhic robes are described in the Voice of the Silence pp. 96,97.

and suddenly it all makes sense!

...of course, my understanding of these three bodies of a buddha is wrong because they don't back up what the TS party line is, which is that only the big-wigs know about the bodies, the dharmakaya is the highest (which really is arse-about), and that the breath is not so important, yet as we all know the breath is not only breath, but also the waters of life, and also a vehicle for the soul...

hardly unimportant, conceptually, I would think...

if according to both u and Steiner being born does not make suffering, then what about the doctrine of original sin? by being born of lust are we not made of sin, according to the christian perception of sin?

..mixing up ur cultures and their metaphors always means u run into difficulty...

I'd suggest the T.S's teaching on such matters are the ones which are

"...contradictory and misleading..."

but hey, what do I know...

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Sr.Francis
>the bearer of light, the most beautiful angel there ever was, who was seated on the left hand of the father, who inspired a rebellion in heaven and wanted to be worshipped as the supreme reality,

Christus verus luciferus

Yes a beautiful being.

>and so there was a battle, Lucifer lost, and Lucifer was cast down onto >the earth, to have dominion there, but...

The Grail tradition has it that Michael struck his sabre onto Lucifer's crown and the stone that fell out became the Holy Grail.



>...the psuedo-esotericist in me sees Lucifer as the father of gnosis,

Yes that is right- the Lucifer Gnosis. Lucifer opened Man's eyes. Lucifer brings the mysteries.

HPB published a magazine titled "Lucifer", Steiner also had one called Luzifer-Gnosis. Alice Bailey's organisation used to be called the Lucifer Trust.


>authority of God and inspired man to be his true self, which the armchair >anarchist in me finds appealing, yet...

Yes, anarchist- Lucifer is an anarchist- Satan isn't.

>...the devil gets blamed for a lot of things; pestilence, crop failure, AID's, >mental illness, sexual depravity, gluttony, despair, and yet- why would >such a beautiful and clever creature seek to cause so much mayhem..?

Depends on which devil you're talking about.

>... to mix up ur buddhism with ur christianity and have Lucifer as a being >who didn't only mess about with the Christians but also buddhists seems
There's nothing new in this. What about St. Josaphat? The eightfold path is in Parsifal.

> ...as for Siva being Lucifer...

Demons slay other demons.

Lucifer is also connected with the Holy Spirit. There are creative beings and beings who reflect God.



> and that the breath is not so important, yet as we all know the breath is >not only breath, but also the waters of life, and also a vehicle for the >soul...

It's how the breath is used.... Will explain another time.


>if according to both u and Steiner being born does not make suffering, >then what about the doctrine of original sin?


Yes there is Original Sin. I wouldn't agree that there is no suffering- that quote from Steiner said to be born is not suffering. All suffering is real.

Illness is suffering? - But the great medicine, will exist, the power of the soul that has been kindled by the Christ Impulse. In uniting himself with the Christ Impulse, Man spiritualises his life.

Steiner


Cordially,
Br. Bruce

 

[Thomas]

This kind of muddle tends to occur when one confuses esoterisms.

That 'all religions are saying the same thing' is now regarded as de facto even though the idea is relatively new, and relative romantic. There is no evidence to suppose this to be the case.

To then assume that all symbols mean the same thing is a continuation of that tangent of error. Every tradition has its own arcana, its own exoterism and esoterism, its own hermeneutic.

But to assume the esoterism of one religion can apply seamlessly to another is something of an error – as is to assume that because someone has read of book on the esoterism of so-and-so, they are qualified to talk on all matters esoteric.

So to understand the Christian 'Lucifer' requires an understanding of the Christian metaphysic, hermeneutic, and its subsequent esoterism. To apply the conditions of another tradition altogether is to mistake the bloke for someone else.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

For those of us who believe in and acknowledge such a thing, there are as many layers of subtlety when it comes to the One Wisdom Religion ... as there are layers of meaning in any one exoteric religion - such as Roman Catholicism, or the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and so forth.

I would even say that Esotericism consists of many, many more such layers, as - evidently - it is even quite possible for a man of otherwise considerable education and experience to be somewhat aware of esoteric aspects, at least of his own religion, yet remain completely ignorant of the one ensouling and sustaining LIFE of all exoteric systems ... even to the point of denying the existence of this Wisdom Religion.

Or yet, as we have seen, such a man CANNOT FATHOM the existence of his precious Sophia Perennis without couching it in terms of HIS OWN, chosen, exoteric religious path. And yet, one finds the Universally-existent path admirably described, even on the Wikipedia site, though it is understandable you will prefer to direct us to the page on DOMINUS IESUS, Thomas ... the extant CHRIST-ONLY dogma preached by the Roman Catholic Church.

Naturally, then, your OWN explanations regarding Lucifer are the ONLY ones we should take seriously ... since anything originating in any tradition other than your own Roman Catholicism ... is in error, misguided, and ill-founded. Remember, Mother Church says it's so.

Thomas, as I am someone who has long been interested in the subject of UFOs, you remind me of a certain American scientist, well-known in UFO circles - Dr. Allen J. Hynek. Originally hired by the U.S. Air Force to debunk UFO experiences (believed encounters), it was Dr. Hynek's job to provide a perfectly "normal," rational, scientific explanation to the poor, misguided UFO subjects - NO MATTER WHAT (meaning despite evidence or reasonable doubt to the contrary). Dr. Hynek functioned as the embodiment of Occam's Razor, philosophically, as he was not allowed to entertain the notion that maybe the UFOs were real when speaking with various subjects, even when his own scientific training told him that - maybe, indeed, these people HAD experienced something.

What happened to him? You can read up on it. Happily, he began to realize what he was doing. He simply could not, in good conscience, continue to tell these innocent people (most of them), that there was no way they had experienced a UFO, since HE HIMSELF did not know. If he could prove that it was "swamp gas" or the planet Venus, then that was one thing, but to say, "It was not a UFO, no way, no how" ... such was a LIE, and he could not accept a SALARY for lying. Dr. Hynek never became a UFO "nut," but what he DID do, was to approach the subject on a level playing field. He began to take the matter seriously - which shows that, as a scientist, he was already light years ahead of many of the best minds, even today.

The best thing that we could possibly do, when it come to the matter of esoteric religious truths, and the notion of one Wisdom Religion - a Sophia Perennis - is precisely what Dr. Hynek did with regard to UFO studies. We owe it to ourselves, if not to everyone else, to admit of the possibility, and to cease intentionally (or unintentionally) distorting the truth about things - even if we are salaried, or rewarded (by the Church, perhaps) for such a thing.

It would be dishonest, for example, if I said, "Oh, I know ALL about Lucifer, and have the solution to the Mystery, the true doctrine behind the myth." What I have, is the result of my own investigations, and falls somewhere between belief and knowledge. What I do know, is that part of the answer can be learned by investigating the relationship between Shakyamuni Buddha, and His disciple, Devadatta ... as also the relationship between Christ and Judas. But to ignore the Eastern teachings regarding the Kumaras, and refuse to entertain the notion that Lucifer may well be even better known in the East than he is in the West (just under a different exoteric guise) ... is like saying, "UFOs are no more than swamp gas."

So, too, Thomas, when you tell us "there is no underlying, Grand, Unifying, all-pervasive Mystery Tradition or Wisdom Religion," you give ol' Dr. Hynek a run for his money. And for the people who have seen ET, maybe even walked into ET's spacecraft ... such debunking is just not acceptable. I think it was honest Abe who said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time ..."

 

[Bruce Michael]

The "Wisdom Religion" or the "Ancient Wisdom" is for me the soul knowledge innate in human beings.

Things either are or they are not. I don't want to really bother with ideas that aren't real. Traditions are nothing if they aren't backed up by spiritual investigation.

As we move ever forward to the Real...
-Br.Bruce

 

[Thomas]

Andrew —

Can I ask that you refrain from spiteful and bitter attacks upon me and my religion, just because I happen not to believe in your 'One Wisdom Religion' dogma?

Up to this point was enjoying a somewhat light-hearted and informed debate ... now you have come in with your usual anti-Catholic invective and, as usual, have missed the point I was making entirely.

Tell me, if you are so trenchantly anti-dogma, why do you suppose that such barbed and offensive posts that are redolent of the dogmata of your own chosen path is an acceptable method of debate? Your anti-Catholicism is evident — though often ill-informed and historically woefully inaccurate and largely propagandist — which only adds to why I do not feel obliged to accept anything you say.

+++

To repeat — in simpler fasion —

Esoterism implies a priori a system of knowledge, according to a given hermeneutic. I do not believe in your 'One World Religion' for a number of reasons, which I am prepared to discuss reasonably and rationally, and thus nor do I believe in a body of esoteric knowledge that is independent or superior to the data of Revelation — this is not how traditional theosophy understands it, and I cannot but see it as putting the cart before the horse — human reason is subsequent to Divine Revelation in such matters, otherwise we presume to know the Mind of God, any 'esoterism' is simply a qualification of that which is 'within' the data of revelation, but not immemdiately accessible to a largely volitive intellect.

In the same way I do not believe a saint, sage or mystic of any one tradition is immediately a saint, sage or mystic of every tradition.

By virtue of that, I believe that every system or religion will have its attendant esoterism ... which is fine ... the problems arise when you try and transfer one to another, and then necessarily are required to 'bend' elements of both to make them fit — ignoing the hermeneutic as a whole.

The problem as I see it, is the requirement than to alter the understanding of all religions, to fit one understanding that is, in reality, founded in none of them, in short, syncretism.

Thomas

 

[Francis king]

I happen to agree with you, thomas, to study the concept in light of other teachings is not the most fruitful- the most fruitful study takes the concept in its right context...

what does catholicism specifically tell us of Lucifer then, thomas?

and u should explain hermaneutic for me, as I am in the cheap seats...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Francis —

Hermeneutics is the study or science of the interpretation of texts.

It is a given among scholars that a given text, the Bible, the Upanishads, the Koran, etc., contains within it everything necessary for its interpretation. It is not necessary to be a Buddhist to be a Christian, nor a Jain to be a Jew, that kind of thing. Everything necessary for the practice of a religion is contained within the data of revelation.

So if there's a question about how to interpret a passage of Scripture, the answer lies in Scripture as a whole, it's no use looking in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, any more than a quote from the Book of Proverbs is the answer to a Zen koan.

There might well be similarities, but they are largely because people are people ... Revelation differs, but the audience is essentially the same ...

People make the huge assumption that because people are the same, the revelations are necessarily the same also, which of course is not the case, and that all revelations are equal ... another metaphysical error, but one beloved of the current fashion for egalitarian and anti-authoritarian modernism ... if such was the case then we'd still be throwing children on the fire, the 'traditional' European test to see if the child was in fact a faerie ... in fact we'd be acknowledging that man has learnt nothing since he learnt to stand upright...

Likewise there might be elements in common ... fashionably 'love' being the heart of all religions, which I can agree with, but the Way of the Heart in Christianity is different than the Way of the Heart for the Sufi. As discussed elsewhere, Compassion in Buddhism is utterly different to Compassion in Christianity, because of the background against which compassion as a human activity is understood ... in the same way that an athiest can be compassionate, without believing in God or Buddha ... but Buddhist and Christian compassion opens onto different horizons...

My argument then with this modern idea of 'one size fits all' is that it takes certain data out of context, matches it with other, similar data that has been removed from its context, and say, "Hey! They both say the same thing!" which appears to be the case superficially, but if you ask an expert in either case s/he'd say, 'actually, no, that's not what it means... '

... then, when a difference is encoutered, either one is wrong, or its 're-interpreted' to make it fit ... this is not hermeneutics, it's making a text fit our preconceptions...

The other thing is that 'esoteric' is and always was an adjective, but now it has become a noun, 'the esoteric' has that certain whoo-hoo factor, whereas, the workings of an electric kettle are esoteric to me, because I don't understand enough about electricity ... in fact DIY in general is esoteric to me, as an attempt to change a £1.37 ceiling rose now requires the house to be rewired, amply demonstrates ...

So, yes, light ... you're asking me about the Angel of Light, when I nearly burnt the house down changing a bulb?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Allow me to quote from NewAdvent — a Catholic online resource, albeit somewhat conservative and old-fashioned ...

Lucifer
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)

The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for "the light of the morning" (Job 11:17), "the signs of the zodiac" (Job 38:32), and "the aurora" (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency; finally to Jesus Christ himself (2 Peter 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the "Exultet" of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life.

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1:14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

So, in fact then, Lucifer can apply in a number of ways in Scripture, and one has to read it in context ... but to suppose that because it is used here and means a bad man, that when it's used there, thatr man is bad too, is an oversimplification ...

"Red sky at night, shepher'd delight ..." unless of course, that's his house burning down (another DIY disaster, no doubt), it's all about context, and these 'one size fits all' views have no anchoring context in the real, but inb abstraction, so they're in freefall.

In Hebrew texts the King of Babylon who shone like the brightest star, and then crashed ... so really there's a dozen proverbs that fit the bill ... the Church fathers then just took the analogy and applied it again in a different way to bring out another aspect of the teaching.

But the idea that Lucifer is the secret agent of God, bringing to fruition all God's plans, is erroneous, and falls flat when examined in the light of a proper Christian metaphysic, and I'm more interested in Christian metaphysics than analogy.

In my Hermetic days I used to lecture on matters esoteric to circles of between twenty-fifty people (one one occasion over three hundred) ... I lectured about five or six nights a week, for three hours a night, whilst holding down a day job (just) ... and was never at a loss for something to say ... that's what it's like, once you step outside the context, there are no rules, you just go with the flow ... it's like a kaleidescope ... all of it fantastic, most of it speculative nonsense ... but your audience has no context either, so they've no means of forming any reasonable judgement, there's the trick, you just keep piling it on, and the sheer weight of 'evidence' becomes staggering ... just don't stop, and don't look too closely ...

Thomas