Lucifer is the bearer of light: Luci - light. fer - to hold or carry, to transport (e.g. “ferry”). Lucifer is the temptation, and when temptation is overcome, the light is the outcome. All light, which is Christ (Ain Soph Aur - Limitless Light), is the outcome of Lucifer. This is the mystery of Christos-Lucifer. It is necessary to make the light within our interior (become enlightened), and then hold this light for others to see and emulate. Yet, “Eve” did not overcome the temptation, thus darkness was the result. Darkness is sub-, un-, and infra-consciousness. The light (Christ) shines in the the darkness (of the fallen mind), and the darkness comprehends it not.
Lucifer is more of a cosmic force than an angel. Lucifer is the sexual impulse. One transforms lucifer into satan when the sexual force is polluted with desire. Using Lucifer is the way to awaken. Lucifer is the the way to become an Angel, and the way to become a Demon. An Angel is a perfected awakened human soul, and a Demon is a perverse awakened human soul. When “Eve” falls into the temptation of her sexual impulse (Lucifer), she gives birth to Cain, which is the false animalistic ignorant intellect that does not know how to please God. Being jealous Cain kills the human soul, Abel.
Another take on scripture, copied from this topic: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1728&whichpage=5
Hi All:
The “truth” of the scriptures is only real if it can be verified in human experience, because human experience is what the scriptures are recording in the first place. The scriptures were written (or orally transmitted) by human beings! They are “absolute” only when mythologized to be so, and this has both pros and cons. The best scriptures are those which can also provide practical means for cultivating the spiritual potential which their authors professed to be resident in all human beings.
Scriptures can be useful when taken on blind faith over the short term, aiding in promoting bhakti and direct spiritual experience, and thus helping dissolve blind faith. But, if taken as absolute truth on blind faith indefinitely, without ongoing spiritual growth via effective practices, scriptures can become the foundation (or excuse) for grossly aberrant conduct in human beings. Any knowledge reduced to the level of an “ideology” and taken on blind faith on an ongoing basis will lead to conflict with other ideologies also taken on blind faith. When a scripture has been reduced to an ideology, beware!
Like any knowledge, scriptures can be well-used or terribly misused.
The real test of any scripture is in whether its highest ideals can be actualized in human experience. That is where the rubber meets the road. For thousands of years many dedicated practitioners have recorded their experiences on the path of human spiritual transformation, and, in some cases, recorded practical means to cultivate the divine outpouring in everyone. We owe them a great deal. How we use the information is up to us – hopefully for the betterment of all humankind.
Just one person’s opinion. 
The guru is in you.
Hi Yogani,
Thanks for the reminder Yogani. I agree with you totally that blind faith in scripture can be useful. I never thought I would hear myself say that, especially as I am a rationalist and a sceptical hard-nosed scientist . As I see it, the scriptures are guides on a journey. If we have developed some faith in a particular scripture, due to it having been relevant on our path up to the point we are at now, then we can (reasonably) assume that we can have faith in the rest of the teachings, even though we have not yet developed our own understanding of those teachings through direct experience. So rationally, blind faith makes a lot of sense. ALthough, as you say, within limits.
Of course, if we are going to use scriptures as tools on the path back to the Divine, then we have to understand them. So I assume your warning here is about not getting attached to the truth of scriptures, to the point where we start arguing about which one is really “True” and leads to God, rather than a warning against trying to understand the scriptures themselves.
Hi Doc
I should clear up a misunderstanding here. When I used the word “Gnostic” in reference to traditions from which certain schools of religious practice developed, such as the Essene tradition, I was not referring to the very limited use of the word as it is used by some historians and Christians when they talk about Gnosticism. When we study the teachings of the Essenes, we can see that the Essenes were a highly advanced spiritual group, with teachings that referred to both a Heavenly Father and an Earth Mother. Much of what later came to be known as Christianity was already fully developed and being practiced by the Essenes before the birth of Christ. In fact I would say that most of the teachings of Christ were probably Essene teachings. The Essenes were obviously not Jewish in their outlook, beliefs or practices. There were other spiritual traditions around the Middle East at the same time, with similar, non-Jewish beliefs, and it seems obvious (to me at least) that these traditions developed from a Gnostic (in the purest sense of the word) tradition that probably goes way back in time. I was using the word Gnostic in the sense of a spiritual tradition that is based on direct spiritual experience both in its development and in its practice. In other words, a tradition where it is as important to develop knowledge through mystical experience, as it is to believe any particular doctrine or teaching. I believe this is what the Essenes were doing, what Christ, as an Essene was doing and, incidentally, what we are doing 
. Sorry about any confusion caused through my loose use of language.
Hi Philip
Sorry… I just saw the word “video”, and thought, “Oh no, another of these online videos that I can’t watch because of my limited connection. I didn’t actually click on it. Thanks for the other (non-dvd) links though.
I find your descriptions of Genesis fascinating. You obviously have a very great undrestanding of the Kabala, and of mysticism. One thing I have always wondered, what are the Elohem? I always thought they were angels, but you mention them in one of your posts above as being aspects of the human soul. Is it true that the first line of the Christian bible is not about God at all, but rather about the Elohem (In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the Elohem, and the word was the Elohem…)?
I heard this once, but as I don’t speak ancient hebrew, I had no way of validating it).
Christi
Christi,
Yes, the Gnosticism you are mentioning is the one in which I study and practice. I agree with what Yogani has stated about “blind faith”. True faith, in truth, is experience of God. When a gnostic says “I have faith in God,” what he is saying that he has experienced God, the Truth, etc. on some level. This is the faith of seed that can move mountains!
The Elohim are the Gods and Goddesses. El is the Hebrew word for God. Eloah is the Hebrew word for Goddesses. Elohim therefore is a compound word that describes the Army of the Voice, The Word (AUM, LOGOS), the conjunction of all the Gods and Goddesses. We have to be careful how we understand these words, because “God” as a singular entity is just an “Angel,” a “Deva,” a “Buddha.” All these words are describing more or less the same type of entity. But the WORD, the LOGOS, the holy and sacred vibration of creation, the AUM that we love to chant, is beyond God, it is THAT which appears from SAT (the Absolute). The Elohim are the Hosts of the Word.
The Christian bible is about the Christ, which is beyond God. People do not know how to understand Gnosticism because they do not know the difference between Jehovah Elohim, and the Christ, which is beyond Elohim. True Gnostic Christianity, which is the essence of the Bible, has never been understood by the Roman Church. The Gnostic Church is very active in these days, yet, one must knock in order to enter.
That which is like the exterior is in similar nature that which is within. Therefore, there is also the “Elohim” within, which represent the diverse aspects of one’s inner being that wishes to integrate and awaken. When one’s inner being is totally integrated and awakened, then another “star” or “atom” of Brahma (Cosmic Father) is awakened. Brahma sleeps, but he wishes to awaken all of his parts, which are all the beings of everyone, but every being has all of its parts. Do you see how creation is cosmically recursive? When one understands the scriptures kabbalistically, one gains many different levels of knowledge from the same passage. One level pertains to the development of the human soul (microcosmos), another to the earth (mesocosmos), another to the stars (macrocosmos), etc., etc. When one knows how to meditate on this material, the appropriate understanding unfolds within the student that he or she needs in order to progress.
The four gnostic kabbalah courses (found in the link I posted before) are very detailed in all this and I recommend you study and meditate upon them. True kabbalah is when one experiences it.
Philip:
I acknowledge that what you and others nowadays profess as ‘gnostic’ teachings is different in some particulars to the gnosticism that Christianity addressed long ago. Nonetheless, it still strikes me as a ‘Heinz 57 Combination’ of alot of ideas from a number of different Traditions…Hebrew Kaballah, Egyptian Mystery Schools, Persian Mani Cults, et al. And yet, this conglomerate of views is presented as the “appropriate understanding” of Biblical teachings which should be accepted by all as the real ‘Truth’ of the matter. 
This essentially tells those who comprise the majority of professed Christians that they don’t understand the teachings of Christ, and lack the opportunity or potential capability to “experience” the essence of Christ’s teachings without your alternative views and methods to direct them accordingly. It reminds me of some Muslims who insist that Mohammed came to “correctly explain Christianity” 
…as if the Direct Transmission of Authentic Apostolic Succession wasn’t able to retain even the most simple elements of Christ’s teaching, much less the advanced ‘inner circle’ teachings. 
As a Greek Orthodox Christian Deacon, I find such ridiculous views to be both very arrogant and remarkably distasteful. 
I think that all discussion of your so-called gnosticism should be placed in a separately titled thread in order to prevent any further digression from the topic of this thread. 
Doc
Hi All:
Yes, please do continue this interesting discussion on Kabbalah, Gnosticism and Christianity (which has just been split off to form a new topic here), and continue the discussion on Immaculate Conception and Tantra over here: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1820
Admittedly, there is some overlap, but I know everyone will do their best to maintain the appropriate distinctions between topics … and civility, of course.
The guru is in you.
Philip, I do think Doc has a point in his last post. I wouldn’t feel as strongly about it as he does, but yes, he does have a point.
If you want to share these points of view, talking about these controversial scriptural interpretations as if they are definite facts is probably not going to be so helpful. Many of the things you say come across to me very much like ‘someone’s interpretation’; ( sometimes I think a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a John the Baptist is just a saint-friend of Jesus, not some esoteric cosmic principle that only the people who have taken the right course know about). Now, if you want to say, for example, ‘John the Baptist can symbolize…’, or ‘To the …, John the Baptist symbolizes’, or even, ‘I personally believe that John the Baptist symbolizes…’, well and good, and I don’t think anyone here will take issue. But if you want what you say to be taken seriously by more people, and needlessly off-putting to fewer people, you should probably modify the way you are expressing it.
There is a term for stating definitely what the one correct interpretation of the bible is: it’s called preaching. It probably hasn’t occurred to you that you are doing this, and only a small modification of mode-of-expression will shift your posts from preaching to merely discussing and expressing your opinion.
Enjoy AYP.
Christi,
I thought this web-site may be useful to you:
http://www.kabbalah.com/
I think it important to remember that the Sephiroth [Tree of Life], relates to the body, as do all forms of mysticism, the chakras etc.; it’s man’s interpretation of the experience that varies:
http://www.swamij.com/bindu.htm
So, some may liken Malchut to the Muladhara Chakra. And some may say that Elohim is representative of the male/female energies combined, as the Kundalini [feminine] awakens and moves up the body to the the Sahasrara Chakra [male], or Keter [the crown]. Atman, Brahman, Bindu, Elohim [AUM]. Although, the exact meaning of the word Elohim is not known.
Malkhut, [The Kingdom of God] which is “emunah” [Faith] is located at the feet of the body relating to the dropping away of the ego. So we can now understand the meaning of Christ washing only his disciples feet:
[quote]
After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
[/quote] John 13: 5-7.
When all has been tried and the ego finally relents, gives up control and is annihilated, it is done so in Faith, since it’s then that the ego realizes that something Else is in control. And is then, that God is realized.
The Dark Night of the Soul: St. John:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/darknite.htm
Malkhut is also related to the mouth and it is in the sense that Christ was a Word, whereas his disciples were like disconnected letters, who still possessed the ego, and lacked the absolute embodiment or self-sufficiency of complete Faith.
VIL
Hi Philip,
Thanks for that info on the Elohim, it was very informative. I will follow up the link you posted.
Hi Vil,
Great post, and thanks for the links. It seems that these words (like Elohim) are fairly ambiguous in terms of their exact meanings. It sounds like we are talking about subtle Light and Sound vibrations at a level fairly close to the source of all Being, and aspects relating to these Divine eminations. So I guess it’s not that surprising that words get a little tricky .
I don’t know if I quite agree with you here. I once saw a diagram of the Kabbalistic tree of life, and immediately I thought: “this is a diagram of the realms of being leading back to the Divine”. I saw each ascending level (on the tree) as being a higher realm of existance. In fact the ten Sefirot are referred to as Midot, which means “Dimensions”. Of course the seven main Chakras also are linked to different dimentions of being, but the question for me is, does the Sephiroth relate to the various gross and subtle dimensions of being directly, and secondarily, and only by implication, to the chakra system of the human body? This was my intuative feeling.
Christi
There is no doubt that the Bible is written in code. It should be obvious to anybody who has ever read it seriously.
Most Christian churches today whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Greek or Eastern Orthodox have lost their core esoteric teachings. This is evident from the fact that the hundreds of millions of people who follow them and claim to be Christian are not actually living spiritual lives. This is because the Bishops and the Deacons of those churches are not leading by example and are not walking in the footsteps of Christ.
So I would like to thank Philip for his wise comments. Instead of shouting heresy (Doc) and criticising Philip’s wording (david) it would be much more helpful if you could address the issue at hand and explain why you think his interpretations are incorrect. And it would be helpful if you could back up your comments by scripture as he did. Being an Orthodox Deacon does not give you authority to declare anything a heresy, Doc. A heresy is a teaching which leads to degradation of the human body, mind and soul. I don’t see how anything Philip said qualifies as that. The exoteric Christian churches of today are more deserving of that label than most gnostic (aka esoteric) teachings.
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20
Chiron,
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20
I don’t know if you want your righteousness to exceed anyone else’s, but it’s not my agenda here at all. I ain’t interested in being more righteous than no scribes and no Pharisees. [deliver in the rap-song idiom – finish with downswipe and then folded arms]. I am merely giving advice about how to hold a civil conversation.
I don’t feel very involved in this conversation, rather, I’m making an effort to have people be fair in the way they conduct it. if you want to be fair, think about symmetry – don’t use a tactic or mode of expression that you would find objectionable in a person you would disagree with. Another utterance of questionable fairness, by the way, is: " It should be obvious to anybody who has ever read it seriously."
Chiron said:
Most Christian churches today whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Greek or Eastern Orthodox have lost their core esoteric teachings. This is evident from the fact that the hundreds of millions of people who follow them and claim to be Christian are not actually living spiritual lives. This is because the Bishops and the Deacons of those churches are not leading by example and are not walking in the footsteps of Christ.
Chiron, is it really the fault of the Bishops and the Deacons? Tell me that you didn’t include ‘Deacons’ because you know Doc is a Deacon… Was there ever an established great esoteric core which those churches lost? I don’t think so, but never mind that — one thing I can say with certainty in their defense: however short you may believe the ‘Bishops and Deacons’ are in good example, all the ones I know of can give you good example in this: they don’t preach outside their congregations.
Christi,
I think that your intuitive sense is correct.
We can relate to God through the nervous system and call the experience dimensions or something else, as long as we derive its benefits. The reason why we have great practices like AYP:
VIL
Yes I definitely want my righteousness to exceed those of the fat priests and Pharisees who claim to be religious yet live materialistic lives. As far as I could tell you were simply picking on irrelevant things and ignoring the main points of Philip’s posts.
Well, have you not noticed the mathematical patterns and puzzles throughout the Bible? If you haven’t then you haven’t read it seriously because the whole book is littered with them.
All the Christian churches have their roots in the esoteric teachings such as kabbalah, gnosticism and hesychasm. In today’s materialistic world religions have become exoteric, polluting and pushing out of sight the true teachings of Jesus Christ (esoteric). This ofcourse is not completely the fault of Bishops and Deacons (representatives of those religions) as it is the age we live in when materialistic energies are at their strongest. But when people go around knocking on doors telling others they need to join a church to be saved when they themselves are attached to materialism then they do begin to bear responsibility. But I guess you don’t know that many Bishops or Deacons.
You have now transited from the ridiculous to the absurd.
“Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.” George Eliot
You should really stick to writing about things that you actually know something about! 
Are you a Christian? A clergyman? How many Bishops or Deacons do you know personally, that you can speak of how they may or may not “lead by example”?
People of ALL religious persuasions worldwide lead non-spiritual, materialistic lives because they choose to do so. They make what they ‘have’ physically the top priority, rather than ‘who’ they are spiritually. This choice is seen among Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Gnostics, et al, and probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of any “core esoteric teachings” in their respective religions, since they are not interested in such things anyway…even if they had access to them!
If the merit of your spiritual path and practices can only be validated by denigrating the spiritual paths of those who hold a different view from your own, how good can it be? Please speak freely of the merit and value of your path, based on your personal experience with it, but please do so without constantly drawing negative comparisons to other paths.
“Very few men are wise solely by their own counsel, or learned solely by their own teaching; for he that was taught only by himself had a fool for his master.” Ben Jonson
Happy Holidays!
Doc
Who am I? Well, I am just dust. I have no authority or power over anything. That is why I will not call anyone a fool or their teaching a heresy.
But the spiritual level of today’s people is miserable. This is an obvious fact and I am not drawing any negative comparisons. Hundreds of millions of those people call themselves Christian. Yet they do not seek God inside themselves and they do not bear the cross of Jesus Christ (Which, by the way, is inside each one us (http://www.omnadelight.com/Images/YogiSm.jpg). And neither do their Bishops or Deacons. I know this because I have never come across a Christian bishop or deacon or minister who’s abilities exceeded that of a normal person which tells me that they have not made much progress in their spiritual path, maybe you are an exception to that Doc, I don’t know. So in my opinion the established churches and their representatives bear responsibility, at least in part, for the low spiritual levels and materialistic attachments of their followers.
Why do most people today not seek to be still and do not hold the progress of their soul as the most important goal of their life? Why do the Bishops and Deacons of the established churches not stress that God must first be found inside each one of our hearts? Found through specific spiritual practice that involves the development of the body, mind and soul. Why do so many truthseekers turn to yoga and himalayan buddhism? Is it not because the vast majority of today’s established churches and their representatives lack esoteric knowledge?
Btw, I am not picking on Christians… most of what I said can be applied to all other mainstream religions.
Chiron said:
As far as I could tell you were simply picking on irrelevant things and ignoring the main points of Philip’s posts.
Far from it, Chiron; it wasn’t on topic per se, but it wasn’t irrelevant: it was a point-of-order, in support of Doc’s complaint.
It may surprise you, but Deacon Doc of the Established Religions has been the good example of not preaching outside his congregation here. Look carefully if you don’t believe me; he can get provoked easily and will complain strongly if he is: but he hasn’t been directly preaching his own beliefs to the unrequesting masses (though he will tell us what he or his tradition believes).
If any kind of preacher turns up here, they’re going to be called on it. If you are wavin’ the bible and telling us what is the true word o’ God, you’re a-preachin’. That would go not just for Southern Baptist preachers but for Gnostic preachers too – preachin’ is preachin’ either way. And if you are drawing negative simplistic pictures of the others whom you believe lost the true word o’ God, whether conventional Christians or Gnostics or Pagans or whatever, you’re a-preachin’ in a sectarian manner.
There is truth in what I say here, Chiron. You might not have realized that you were preaching, but you were. In any case what remains is an opportunity to see here that you have been doing it and to stop. Do just that and it is no biggie at all – we all need to be pulled up now and again. And then to just get on with things – and to tell us what you believe about these things without crossing the sectarian preaching line. That’s all.
Oh yes, and Philip – welcome to the forum.
Sorry david, but I don’t have a congregation. I don’t even have a religion. So I got nothing to preach here. And no there is no truth in what I say because the truth cannot be said and these are not the words of God… And if you actually want to post something which is relevant to the points in my posts then I will gladly explain my views further. There goes my attempt to keep you and Doc open-minded to new interpretations… but its ok if you want to stick to your pre-established conclusions.
Obviously, no amount of debate or discussion solves any problem in truth. The truth at hand cannot be found anyone inside of the mind, for the mind does not have the ability to grasp the truth, only the shadow of it. Thus, we find ourselves always arguing over the shapes of shadows when indeed we have forgotten what produced them.
Logic, no matter how elegantly presented, is subjective. Any argument can be countered with an equally matched antithesis. The result is ignorance, which indeed is the anti-gnosis.
The Gnostics have always been on the fringe, have never been accepted by the masses and I fully understand the impetus of the feelings expressed on this thread concerning my words.
I, nor does anyone else, has the right to provoke any emotion, good or evil, in another person. It is good to note that the latter is the result of psychological slavery, which is a form of suffering. Absolute and perfect psychological equilibrium can be understood as the Narrow Gate and the Middle Way that few are able to adhere to.
Theories bore me. Belief tires me. Therefore what I wish, for everyone here, is the Nativity of Christ to transpire within our hearts and minds so that all this confusion, conflict, negative emotions, darkness and gnashing of teeth washes away into a sea of infinite delights and awesome happiness.
With these words of the Adorable Savior, let us meditate on the fact that it is not I who states that few know the True Way, but Him.
Greetings Chiron and Philip:
I hold no grudge against either of you. I also have no desire to engage the two of you in a ‘my religion is better than your religion’ debate and ‘mud slinging’ contest. In fact, quite sincerely, I feel great empathy and compassion for both of you. And I would like you to know that it saddens my heart to think that you apparently had an unpleasant ‘church experience’ or a hurtful religious upbringing, probably in a Christian church congregation of some kind. 
Not outside Christianity looking in, as if trying to peer through darkly tinted glass, but from the inside where I am able to fully and clearly see the intrinsic value of everything within, I can tell you from direct and profound personal experience that Eastern Orthodox Christianity does in fact possess an ‘Inner Circle’ compilation of esoteric spiritual writings, teachings, and practices.
Traditionally, from the earliest days of Christianity, these materials and practices have been accessible to all Orthodox, but have been primarily preserved and perpetuated by monastics and ordained clergymen. This is because individuals in these two groups most often represent the majority of those who thirst for such Knowledge, Revelation, and Illumination.
I am such an individual, having been both a monk and a clergyman. Thus, I humbly speak on behalf of this ‘hidden tradition’ by posting on topics such as this one! It’s a dirty job sometimes, but someone needs to do it! 
I am not at liberty to openly discuss some things, but can freely comment on other topics at my own discretion. And I will gladly do so if there is an interest, but only if the Christian bashing ceases and desists on this thread.
Happy Holidays!
Doc
Chiron said: Sorry david, but I don’t have a congregation. I don’t even have a religion. So I got nothing to preach here.
Yes. Double the reason not to preach.
Chiron said: There goes my attempt to keep you and Doc open-minded to new interpretations… but its ok if you want to stick to your pre-established conclusions.
You are just dust? You are styling yourself as the humble servant-of-god, aren’t you? I’m really wondering which is true — that you can’t see your aggressive and presumptuous mode of delivery at all, or that you love it too much to let it go?
Let me make one thing totally clear: I don’t object to your beliefs at all, or to your expressing them here. What I am criticizing is what you are doing here on the forum.
Philip said: The Gnostics have always been on the fringe, have never been accepted by the masses and I fully understand the impetus of the feelings expressed on this thread concerning my words.
Yeah, the Rebel Force, heroically struggling against the Evil Empire… And you have something in your ship dressed in big cute Wookie-furs and which you may think is a Wookie, but it is breathing and talking just like Darth Vader. [ kaaaaaw -phoooooh, Arf-Arf! kaaaaaaw- phooooooh Arf-Arf! -that’s the sound of Darth Vader pretending to be a Wookie! ]. And that is the big self-styled-Wookie-within that is preaching here in a sectarian manner, waving the bible, bashing mainstream Christianity, and styling those who disagree as closed-minded.
C’mon, snap down from the trip. No-one’s getting on your case here for being in the Rebel Force, it’s the sectarian bible-thumping that’s pulling in the objections.