Lucifer as Christ's Brother

[Bruce Michael]

Shalom,


There is a Mormon doctrine which states this- and there is nothing wrong with the doctrine. It is accepted by various groups. It can lead to confusion when we go on further to learn about the redeemed Lucifer.


"Lucifer" can refer to many beings- beings of the laggard kind - but at their head is an adversary of humankind, cause of evil, of error, now and in the past. Some occultists confuse what has been redeemed by Christ with the unredeemed aspects, making Lucifer a benefactor of mankind.

Christ is the true Light bringer. Christ has mingled His Being with those gifts from Lucifer, (the Arts) making them suitable for us. He has vouchsafed our freedom- He has given us the substance not just the possibility of.

I think the Mormons are a little embarrassed about this doctrine and probably don't understand its significance. They are quick to point out that we are all brothers. Why not ask them about this when they next come knocking on your door?


Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

I found a quote by Adolf Arenson, which puts into words this idea better than I was able to do:

"We had to have the possibility of evil, in order to have the possibility of spiritual freedom; the two concepts are mutually inclusive. Lucifer gave us the possibility of spiritual freedom, Christ gave us the reality, the actual substance. Hence the esoteric saying in the early days of Christianity: Christus verus Luciferus, i.e., Christ is the true Lucifer, the true Light-bringer."

-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

I found a quote by Adolf Arenson, which puts into words this idea better than I was able to do:

"We had to have the possibility of evil, in order to have the possibility of spiritual freedom; the two concepts are mutually inclusive.

This is somewhat poor, or at least imprecise, metaphysics.

The axis is the freedom to choose, and if a Creator allows us 'freedom' then ontologically the choice is either to accept what God wills, or refuse it. Good or evil are subsequent to freedom.

Good/evil, right/wrong then become choices on the basis that what is good and right is pre-determined ... what will be will be, and the question then is whether we choose to be part of the future, or not.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Lucifer gave us the possibility of spiritual freedom,

Nonsense, and suspicious nonsense — Lucifer does not determine human nature, nor does Lucifer create the soul, therefore spiritual freedom cannot be Luciferian — quite the reverse in fact. Lucifer represents the human tendency to assume that what is given to us is ours by right. A diminishment of that freedom.

It's the difference between a charism and a glamour — the former is invisible, but potent, the latter is attractive, but empty.

[quote=Bruce Michael;116569]
Christ gave us the reality, the actual substance. Hence the esoteric saying in the early days of Christianity: Christus verus Luciferus, i.e., Christ is the true Lucifer, the true Light-bringer."[/indent]
Can you provide the context of that quote, who said it, and when, or is it something that someones has assumed was said?

As far as I know, Christ was never considered as such. In Christian iconography, St Michael is opposed to Lucifer, as the latter belonged to the Archangelic order.

We can see in the human nature and will of the Incarnate Son the reconstituted 'true' image of humanity, and 'the light that lighteth every man' (cf John 1:4), that was blighted by the self-inflicted wound of the Luciferian tendency, the assumption that freedom means it is ours to do with as we will.

Arensom makes a common mistake in trying to set up a syncretic model, he muddles up his metaphysics.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

In a rather lengthy letter of Dec. 3, 1937, Helena Roerich addresses the question of Lucifer - including his origins, activity, ontological status and destiny, all in connection with Humanity - fairly succinctly. Lucifer is discussed throughout the 2nd Volume of her Letters, but this excerpt brings most of the facts together ...

In understanding the existence of evil together with the Element of good the whole difficulty lies in that having humanized the Unutterable Divine Origin, and, at the same time, seeing the many imperfections of the unmanifested world, people are justly perplexed but the idea that a benevolent and all-merciful god could allow the destructive cosmic cataclysms and all the horrors and sufferings that people undergo in their struggle for existence. And so, limited thinking begins to create the image of just as powerful a force of evil, represented by the antagonist of God, or Satan. But if we cast away the limitation or humanization of the Unutterable Power and accept the majestic pantheism of the ancients, the echo of which we find in the Testaments of all the great Teachers, in the Old Testament, and in the Gospels, then everything will fall into place.

God, in his aspect of the Absolute, contains the potentiality of all that exists. In the Absolute, or in the World of the Highest Reality or Be-ness, of course there is no evil, as such. But in the manifested world, which is the result of differentiation, all the opposites are present, i.e. - light and darkness, spirit and matter, the opposite polarities, good and evil, etc. I strongly advise you to assimilate the primary foundations of the Eastern philosophy - the existence of the One, Absolute, Transcendental Reality, its dual Aspect in the conditioned Universe, and the illusion, or relativity, of whatever is manifested.

Only through comparison of this duality, or pairs of opposites, are the sparks of knowledge struck, and perfectment, or evolution, becomes possible. Eternal motion, or evolution, creates the relativity of all concepts. Thus, perception of reality can be achieved only through perpetual change and the comparison of pairs of opposites.

The action of opposites creates harmony similar to centrifugal and centripetal forces, which, being interdependent, are necessary for each other in order that both of them may exist. If one were to cease to exist, the action of the other would immediately become destructive. Precisely, the manifested world is kept in balance by the opposing forces. These counterforces, or pairs of opposites, acquire this or that color, or quality, in our consciousness, in other words, they become either good or evil. On each plane of manifestation the degree of evil and good is determined by the consciousness of man, in accordance with the degree of his development. What is good on the lower plane may appear as evil on a higher one and vice versa. Hence, the relativity of all concepts in the manifested world.

Thus, when we shall realize that the concepts of evil and good in their cosmic aspect are relative, then, of course the existence of Satan as the focus of self-sufficient evil on a cosmic scale will fall by itself, or be overthrown.

But it is equally certain that the image of Satan as a fallen angel and the Host of our Earth (therefore of human substance) does exist, to the misfortune of our planet, and, alas, he is very active.

In the esoteric Teaching of the East it is indicated that Lucifer came to our Earth together with the other High spirits who sacrificed themselves for the acceleration of the evolution of the planet and its humanity. But Lucifer was not the highest among his Brethren, and when the time came for him to take on the earthly and dense sheaths, his spirit could not remain on its former height. Beginning with the early times of Atlantis his downfall had already started. And in all the following ages we see him as the fierce antagonist of his great Brothers, who were continuously ascending in the glory of Light. The Hindu epics immortalized the Fallen One in many images, the best known among these being that of King Ravana of the island of Lanka (Ceylon), who was the adversary of the godlike King Rama; and the abductor of his wife, Sita. The very fact that the spirit of the Fallen Angel in the potential of the kernel of the spirit bore energies that are akin to our Earth was actually fatal for him, for through this he was particularly attached to Earth. We know that each immersion, or incarnation, in a dense sheath inevitably obscures the knowledge of the spirit. How much more intensified was such obscuration, due to the imperfection of these sheaths during the final days of Atlantis when the full involution of the spirit into matter was completed! Only the Highest spirits who came from the higher planets and whose spiritual potentiality is subject to the higher attraction have preserved their Light unobscured during their entire earthly path. Now you will understand the dimensions of the Great Sacrifice that was, and is still being made by these true Saviors of humanity. They swore to undergo the battle with the hierophant of evil and to remain with suffering humanity on Earth to the very end of its existence. Do reread On Eastern Crossroads and everything that I have already written you about Lucifer.

Lucifer is now at the head of the Black Brotherhood, which is very powerful, for it has co-workers among the masses over the entire span of the planet. Indeed, the dark forces always act through masses; in single combat they are not strong. Likewise, they are distinguished by greater unity than the co-workers of the Forces of Light, for the realization of danger is at times the best unifier. Unfortunately, many "glow-worms" do not believe in the forces of darkness and present a sad spectacle of disjointed units and lukewarm ones about whom the Apocalypse speaks so sternly. Yes, not numerous are the armies of Light on Earth, but in spite of that, with the help of the Higher Knowledge of the Hierarchy of Light, the final victory will always be on the side of the Forces of Good.

Thus, the ignoramuses laugh at the existence of Satan and, by that very fact, they confirm the correctness of the words of one subtle thinker, "The victory of the devil lies in his ability to convince people that he does not exist."

Certainly, when we do not believe in or deny something, we cease to be wary of it and easily fall into the snares set by the numerous agents of darkness. It is indeed very sad that during long centuries the most ignorant and extremely dangerous belief was inrooted that Satan ruined humanity by giving it the knowledge of good and evil. People habitually repeat this shocking absurdity and do not care to ponder at all what kind of man would be one who did not know the difference between good and evil. Would he not simply remain an irresponsible animal? What human being would agree to revert to such an animal-like existence, even if it were in the garden of paradise? The great gift of discrimination, and therefore of free will, is a divine gift, and only by possessing it can man become the image of god. Therefore, such a gift could not be brought by the forces of darkness, but was a sacrificial offering to man by the Forces of Light. That explains the original name of this Messenger, which was Lucifer, the Light-Bringer. But during the ages the great meaning of this legend was lost in the West, and remained only in the Sacred Teachings of the East.

In the "Sacred Teaching" there is an explanation clarifying this meaning. "Thus SATAN," once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious, dogmatic, unphilosophical spirit of the Churches, grows into the grandiose image of one who made of terrestrial a divine MAN; who gave him, throughout the long cycle of Maha-kalpa, the law of the Spirit of Life, and made him free from the Sin of Ignorance, hence of death."

Actually, such a "Satan," as you already know, is the combination of those High Spirits, who, together with the Fallen Angel brought to humanity the light of intelligence and the great gift of immortality. Therefore, it is precisely They who should have been called the "Light-Bringers," or Lucifers. The Fallen Angel lost his right to this name.

For those who have been paying attention, and I believe that includes all participants in this thread of discussion so far, it should become apparent why HPB, then Alice Bailey afterwards, preferred to try and rescue the epithet of Lucifer ... and bring to LIGHT its real significance.

I am amazed, frankly, that some would try and defend such black and white thinking - notwithstanding all that is said above about polarity and dualities ... and have us all come out as Manichaeans, on the one hand, or as believers in childish fairy tales, on the other.

Master Morya, of all the Mahatmas, would well know something of the fallen Kumara of whom & which he speaks ... and thus, whether that kumara is designated Lucifer, Satan, or simply `the hierophant of evil,' it becomes necessary to point out that this individualy does exist, and in a position corresponding to Christ's, relative to the dark brotherhood vs. the Brotherhood of Light.

The Legend from On Eastern Crossroads might also be helpful to share:

LUCIFER
HEREIN lay the revolt of Lucifer? He wished to remain within the boundaries of the planet. And the legend of the Prince of the World is fairly true. He began to surround himself with spirits content with the earthly aura. In order to hold his followers he began to unfold before them the possibilities of earth, imitating—at times with skill—the counterposition of the opposing side.

One may speak of the miracle of the Antichrist.

“Wherefore is needed the realization of the future, when I can show you the forces of earth!”

But among his followers, none will say on departing from earth: “I ascend, Lord!” Instead they tremble, rending themselves from the earthly effulgence. Truly beautiful was Lucifer, and he imparted to people in his way the understanding of the earthly radiance. But without him there would not be a definite boundary between the earth and the nearest spheres. Without him the difference between life on earth and on other spheres would be gradually effaced, permitting to incarnate spirits the movability of matter. But the ancient Prince of the World, in opposition, chains matter to the crust occupied by him. As the planetary spirit, he knew the depths of the earth. But his error lies in the unwillingness of cooperation with other planets. Precisely this is what brought Christ to the World.

While Lucifer glorifies the life of earth, Christ points to the beauty of the entire Creation of the worlds. We say, “Let the light of Lucifer glow, but the greatness of other fires cannot be hidden behind it.”

We do not fear to pronounce his name. We are aware of his existence. We say, “Your way cannot fulfil the destiny of earth because only through communion with other worlds will the life of your stronghold be regenerated. Your rocks will wear away and whereon then will you set your throne? And the eternal life and the eternal flux give us an eternal home. Christ in no way differed from your servants but He showed the privilege of motion beyond the boundaries of earth.”

Christ said, “I may spend the night upon the beautiful earth in order to continue the journey; but thou, host of the earth, bid thy servants back, lest they prevent me from going my way at dawn.”

And thus, one became ensnared by matter, the other passed on to the worlds of possibilities of Light.

Lucifer, come is the time to re-kindle your lamp!

Lucifer, who might have become the expounder of Unity, preferred to sever himself from his neighbors. The battle of desperation transformed the Bearer of Light; and the ruby aura became infused with the blood-red glow. His followers truly began to apply depraved means.

Miserable Carrier of Light! In the death of Christ you admitted an irrevocable error. The cedar of Lebanon which bore the body of Christ shall but shorten the way to the Highest World.

Hence you shall have to depart to Saturn; for this, have you long been called Satan. But there also shall the gardener of matter find fields to labor as on earth.

And accept Our last counsel. Look over the rows of your servants!

Upon the ladder of life you sought to outdistance the Teacher. Be warned: Here stands She, witness of your destiny. The Star of the Mother of the World rose as a signal against your madness, when you determined to demean Her, the Bearer of Spirit. You will behold woman return to her destined place.

[Thomas]

It's worth noting that one should understand Lucifer in context.

Lucifer is the Latin translation of the Greek for Day Star, the planet Venus.

As such 'Day Star' is a neutral term.

In Isaiah:
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High' " (Isaiah 14:12-14).

We know that Isaiah was referring to the King of Babylon. The image that he creates is simple and poetic. The Day Star heralds the dawn, but in his presentation he views the Babylonian monarch as a false dawn, as one who tries to usurp the throne of God. As such he falls, as the Day Star is eclipsed by the rising of the Sun.

There is no immediate attempt to present a doctrine of good v evil, nor of some demonic presence, but simply of a man who sought to over-reach himself, an Icarus figure, the very embodiment of 'pride comes before the fall'.

+++

The Greek Fathers delighted in drawing a spiritual meaning out of every line of text. Thus, the image of the falling star ideally suited the idea of the fall from grace of both men and angels, and as they saw the fall originated in the intellect, which they considered ther angelic, realm.

But the image of the Day Star, as a positive portent of the coming Sun, is also used, in Revelations:
2:28 "And I will give him the morning star."

'him' being man, the morning star then being the Paraclete. Later in the same book the image applies to Christ Himself:

22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star."

As does 2 Peter 1:19:
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts"

Revelations uses the Greek orthrinos aster whereas Peter uses the more philosophical phosphoros term of the Day Star as a rising light (as does Plato in the Timaeus). The Latin translation is Lucifer, and it was this name that was appended to the speculations of the Greek Fathers with regard to the fallen angels.

So lucifer as a term which, as poetic imagery, can only be understood in context, being either positive, negative or indeed neutral.

Lucifer, as the term given to a metaphysical principle tending towards illusion, separation and ontological extinction by the Greek Fathers, is the prevalent term in Christian theology and philosophy — and should be understood in that context. To assume that the demonic Lucifer of the Fathers is the same figure as spoken of in Revelations and by Peter is easily shown to be erroneous.

It would appear that Roerich simply employs the term as a generic, which she is entitled to do, but then she goes on to state:
"But if we cast away the limitation or humanization of the Unutterable Power and accept the majestic pantheism of the ancients, the echo of which we find in the Testaments of all the great Teachers, in the Old Testament, and in the Gospels, then everything will fall into place."

Now as is evident, the image of the Day Star in Scripture has at least four possible meanings, depending on context, it is she who has chosen a limited application of the symbol.

Furthermore, as the Abrahamic Traditions are indisputably not pantheistic, then it is she who determines what is a 'limitation or humanization' and simply tosses away what doesn't suit her — ther image in Isaiah, in Peter, in Revelations, or in Christian theology ... a combination of them, or perhaps all of them?

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Furthermore, as the Abrahamic Traditions are indisputably not pantheistic, then it is she who determines what is a 'limitation or humanization' and simply tosses away what doesn't suit her — ther image in Isaiah, in Peter, in Revelations, or in Christian theology ... a combination of them, or perhaps all of them?

Thomas

But Thomas, this is your assumption ... and an incorrect one, I shall EVER point out. Thus, you arrive at conclusions which suit you.

I prefer to stick to your own recognition of the fact that - "the image of the Day Star in Scripture has at least four possible meanings, depending on context" (!) ...

And I point out, only that the name, Lucifer, or Light-Bringer, rightly applies to the Kumaras, who are recognized in Roman Catholic Christianity as a certain order of the Angels ... the penultimate tier, if I am not mistaken, the Archangels - one of the Highest Sephira of Kabbalism.

Now the term should still apply to those Kumaras Who have kept Their vow, or Who have not succumbed to the temptations of matter. But the Legend is given, the meaning is indicated, and all that remains is for you to do a little research on your own ... in order to see the pieces fall into place.

To do this, however, you must be willing to take a leap of Faith. And this, I'm afraid, we shall not see, Br. Thomas.

Incidentally, Helena Roerich is but drawing upon the same tradition that HPB herself helped to elucidate, since Blavatsky cast light on many of the Western Teachings, as well as the Eastern. Or, if you prefer, I would recommend a reading of Geoffrey Hodson's multi-volume The Hidden Wisdom in the Holy Bible.

If the text cannot be found online, it can be borrowed from any prominent University library ... via Interlibrary Loan. Or of course, purchased, for a small fee.

Bananabrain asks, must we sift through many volumes of such material, only to see where our own traditions have erred - and missed the mark, or deviated from the truth, yadda yadda ... and all this, coming from someone who does not even practice our own tradition!?!

But you know what I think, when it comes to how we INTERPRET the traditions of yore. I have respect for EVERY single ounce, aspect or practice which still EVEN VAGUELY resembles what once was ... and for the whole, I like to believe that the baby amidst the murky bathwater is well worth saving.

Thomas, you - and perhaps Bananabrain, coming from the Jewish tradition - will make NO DISTINCTION between fact, and error, between what is a worthy, noble & worthwhile practice ... and what has been perpetuated only for the sake of memory - its true significance long since lost by the wayside. You will not distinguish between the wheat, and the chaff, as the proverbial metaphor goes - if not actually from the Book of the same name.

And there, I cannot help you. Spit if like, grimace and sneer. You do not intimidate me.

THE QUESTIONER OF CINEDRION
MEMBER of Cinedrion asked Christ:
“Would you come to us if we should ask you?”
Christ answered:
“Better would I go to the cemetery for there is no lie.”
A member of Cinedrion asked Christ, “Why dost thou not acknowledge us if even Thy father was married by one of our members?”
“Wait until your house crumbles; then shall We come.”
“Wherefore shalt thou come—to destroy or to erect?”
“Neither for destruction nor erection but for purification. Because I shall not return to the old hearth.”
“How then, not to respect your forefathers!”
“New cups are given for the feast. Respecting a grandfather, one need not drink out of his cup.”

And once again, Thomas, we see here how insistent you are, on avoiding the mere possibility that something from within the Fathers' Holy Doctrines might be capable of receiving further elucidation from without. Indeed, concerning the connection between Lucifer and Venus - not simply as a PLANET, but rather as an entire EVOLUTION (of a LOGOS, well ahead of our own) ...

Flames Largely interchangeable with fire, both being borrowed from the Fire-philosophers in an attempt to render the ancient teachings. Often the same distinction is made as in ordinary usage: that flame is a portion of fire, or that fire is a more abstract and general term and flame a more concrete and particular. Thus, the intellectual and guiding cosmic spirits, as well as the astrally and physically creative builders, are spoken of as being a hierarchy of flames. The Lords of the Flame are the agnishvatta-pitris, or the intelligent architects cosmically; as the givers of mind to humanity they are alluded to as those whose fire is too pure for the production of physical mortal mankind. The Asiatic Qabbalists or Shemitic initiates meant by Holy Flame what is called the anima mundi or world-soul, and this is why adepts were called sons of the holy flame. Flame is also a projection of fire, as when a flame of the divine fire descends into matter, or flames of fire descend upon one inspired by the Holy Spirit or encircle the head of an initiate. (from an Online Theosophical Glossary)

and

Lucifer (Latin) Light-bringer [cf Greek Phosphoros; or Eosphoros dawn-bringer]; the planet Venus, the morning star. Lucifer is light bringer to earth, not only physically as the brightest of the planets, but in a mystical sense also. In mysticism he is the chief of those minor powers or logoi who are said to rebel against high heaven and to be cast down to the bottomless pit -- the so-called war in heaven and the fall of the angels. This allegory is found also in the legend concerning Prometheus, in the Hindu Mahasura who rebels against Brahma and is cast by Siva into patala, and in the Scandinavian Loki. In the cyclic sweep of evolution, spirit has first to descend or become involved in differentiation and in the worlds of matter, so that worlds and beings may be brought forth and evolved. The logoi who thus bring the light may allegorically be said, like Prometheus, to steal the fire, and their assertion of divine free will may be construed into an act of evolutionary rebellion; yet such is their karmic function as well as duty.

Lucifer has been transformed in later Occidental theology into a synonym for the Evil One or the Devil. If the god Jehovah were the highest divinity, which this Jewish tribal deity is not, then any power withstanding him must necessarily be considered to be his adversary; and in the same way the teaching as to the immanent Christ, not only in the world but in each individual person, not being altogether agreeable with the doctrine of salvation by faith in an external savior, became transformed into the Tempter inspiring man to sinful rebellion against God. Lucifer in a very true sense stands for the self-conscious mind in man, which is at once tempter and enlightener -- tempter in its lower aspects and enlightener and inspirer in its higher.

Go on, argue for argument's sake. And where does it get you?

A wise and humble man would acknowledge, that at least those parts in blue are an indication of exactly his own point ... though uttered by a greater mind, in a different day.

What is not specified in the above, is that of the Kumaras that arrived from Venus ~18 million years ago, there is a distinction between the Allegory of the Fall, and the Rebel Kumara, so to speak - the Light-Bringer who is no longer entitled to that appellation.

Yet the Church makes no distinction in her doctrine, between the Divine Injunction, or Decree of the Almighty to GO forth INTO GENERATION (which HPB refers to, and which we speak of as the Fall) ... and the kind of sinful, prideful `fall' which applies to the rebel kumara - and thus, even the scholars among us, cannot clear up the confusion.

I may not understand the Mystery to its fullest ... but I will not BLINDLY accept whatever is handed me, just because it is tradition, and the `sacra doctrina' of one group, religion, or organization.

SHOW ME a religion, or a spiritual philosophy, which does not contain a kernel of this legend, and I'll show you some beachfront property in Arizona. But only one or two amongst us insist that the legend is not open to further exploration.

Why such determination? Why the necessity to "be right?"

I will admit my mistaken scholasticism, gladly, but so far all I see is, as I said, arguing for argument's sake. And that has nothing whatsoever ... to do with Truth.

Nasti Paro Dharma

[Bruce Michael]

>For those who have been paying attention, and I believe that includes all >participants in this thread of discussion so far, it should become apparent >why HPB, then Alice Bailey afterwards, preferred to try and rescue the >epithet of Lucifer ... and bring to LIGHT its real significance.

I am not surprised that HPB and others, saw Lucifer the way they did, Bro. His influence is not all bad. He is the bringer of the Arts and the Mystery Wisdom.

>I am amazed, frankly, that some would try and defend such black and >white thinking - notwithstanding all that is said above about polarity and >dualities ... and have us all come out as Manichaeans, on the one hand, >or as believers in childish fairy tales, on the other.

I don't expect all to come out as anything in particular.

God Bless,
Br.Bruce

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Thomas;


>The axis is the freedom to choose, and if a Creator allows us 'freedom' >then ontologically the choice is either to accept what God wills, or refuse >it. Good or evil are subsequent to freedom.

That is why Arenson uses precise language. The accent is on possiblity.


>Nonsense, and suspicious nonsense — Lucifer does not determine human >nature, nor does Lucifer create the soul, therefore spiritual freedom >cannot be Luciferian — quite the reverse in fact. Lucifer represents the >human tendency to assume that what is given to us is ours by right. A >diminishment of that freedom.

The influence of the Luciferic Beings brought to us a gift that was to be ours in the future. That is the evil of it. It was given to us prematurely.- that is the Fall.

Prometheus is Lucifer, the light-bringer, but also the cause of sin; he is the Lord of Light, but also the Spirit of Darkness. He represents the Manasaputra or Sons of Mind, who brought down the key of knowledge from heaven to animal man (see the cover of Lucifer), and became in consequence chained for many ages to the rock of earthly existence. He is the god who descends into matter to redeem it, but becomes thereby tainted by its evil tendencies, and is perpetually tortured by the vulture of remorse. He deliberately chooses to live many lives of suffering with self-consciousness rather than to remain a passive partaker in the joys of heaven.

The Myth of Prometheus - or the Coming of Creative Power to Man - by C. - as published in "Theosophical Siftings" - Volume 7 - [1894-1895]

There are two types of beings, the Creative and Angelic- from Father God this was so. So too, from Christ as well. Demonic beings come from when the one develops into the other and the perversion of influence reaffects malevolently those whose influence still streams pure and intact.

Creative spirits who have come into Angelhood and have been inducted into armies by higher beings who drew their will away from them and bled their individualities away, are now dark-angels who are in service to that which overpowers them, and uses them for the creative vitalities which they hold signature to. It is the inordinate blend of corrupted creativity and the subservience of a lesser angel which creates the malformed anarchies. Then also, in regards to the 'fallen' angels, there is the truth that when they stepped out of their parent stream and incorporated powers which were not of their license, once again the unfavourable influence upon all else in the plan ensued.

-The Brothers

Lucifer, at the head of that influence, is a hierarchical being.

>Christus verus Luciferus, i.e., Christ is the true Lucifer, the true >Light-bringer."
>Can you provide the context of that quote, who said it, and when, or is it >something that someones has assumed was said?

Arenson does not give any more information.

>As far as I know, Christ was never considered as such. In Christian >iconography, St Michael is opposed to Lucifer, as the latter belonged to >the Archangelic order.

Yes. There were Bishops in the early church with the name "Lucifer".
The Name "Lucifer"

Some details:
Lucifer is identified with Loki and the Arabian Iblis.
Some more on the name "Lucifer":
"The mystagogues and poets expressed the same meaning in the epithet Lukeios or Lukaios; which is occasionallly applied to almost every personification of Deity, and more especially to Apollo; who is likewise called Lukegenetes, or as contracted Lukegenes... it signifies Author or Generator of Light; being derived from Luke, otherwise Lukos, of which the Latin word Lux is a contraction."

The title Lucetius is applied to Jupiter. "But from another standing-point, Bryant derives these terms from El-Luk, a title of the sun among the Egyptians and Babylonians, the initial vowel being finally elided."
The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology, R.P. Knight.


>We can see in the human nature and will of the Incarnate Son the >reconstituted 'true' image of humanity, and 'the light that lighteth every man' (cf John 1:4), that was blighted by the self-inflicted wound of the Luciferian tendency, the assumption that freedom means it is ours to do with as we will.

Christ is Man.

"Whitsuntide [Pentecost] belongs in a spiritual sense to Easter, is, in a spiritual sense, connected with Easter, and is inseparable from Easter. This Holy Spirit is none other than the re-risen Luciferic Spirit, resurrrected now in a new and higher glory. He is the spirit of Self-reliant, wisdom-filled knowledge. The re-risen Lucifer carries the torch before the Christ. Lucifer, now transformed to the good, bears the Christ Himself. Christ is the Light--Lucifer is the Light-bearer."

Arenson, Adolf. Lucifer: Two lectures by Adolf Arenson: Stuttgart 1933. Spring Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1992 p. 21

In Christ,
Br.Bruce


Angels by makeover have no capacity to wilfully make new and varied anythings.

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

But Thomas, this is your assumption ... and an incorrect one, I shall EVER point out.

Please note I said 'in context', and as I ever point out, I refer to the Christian context, in this case understanding of 'Lucifer' specifically, not to what any other culture or tradition makes of the astronomical event of the morning star.

I do not, for example, assume that the Bablonian, Greek or Roman pantheons are wrong in attributing love to Venus – I just assume they are different.

Christian philosophers took the Scriptural reference and extracted a teaching in line with the message of Scripture, nothing else.

My contention is that if one uses a unique term, and Lucifer is unique to Christianity, then one should understand the term in the context in which it stands, else it can mean anything you like.

If, for example, one used Astarte or Ishtar, then I'd know what the term means according to Phoenician or Babylonian tradition.

I do not assume Babylon or Greece or Rome did not understand what their gods stood for, because the Day Star means something else entirely to the Mayans or the Masaai.

+++


With regard to pantheism, Can show me where Catholic doctrine, Jewish doctrine, or Moslem doctrine, declares itself to be pantheist? I've checked my Catechism of the Catholic Church, and can't find it.

And while we're at it, Buddhist doctrine, on the basis that Buddhism is non-theist anyway ... and Daoism, which famously declares 'The Dao that can be spoken is not the true Dao'?

Might I also add that as I understand it, one is not obliged to accept TS doctrine, so if the TS does not proclaim it as true, then why should I?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

And I point out, only that the name, Lucifer, or Light-Bringer, rightly applies to the Kumaras, who are recognized in Roman Catholic Christianity as a certain order of the Angels ... the penultimate tier, if I am not mistaken, the Archangels - one of the Highest Sephira of Kabbalism.

Again, can you show me in the Catechism where the term 'kumara' is 'recognised'?

What other traditions make of the astronomical event is theirs to make, what we make of it is ours. That you make something else again, and then say that if a culture does not agree with you it is wrong, is surely the same kind of Imperialism — in this case spiritual imperialism — that HPB and co. seemed to stand against?

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The influence of the Luciferic Beings brought to us a gift that was to be ours in the future. That is the evil of it. It was given to us prematurely.- that is the Fall.

And here we need to focus precisely:
If the gift was premature, how is it premature?

I would say it was premature according to the Divine Will — if God wanted us to have it, we would have it, and because we did not have it, we can safely assume God had His reason for why not.

It would seem that obedience to the will of God could be put aside ... so Lucifer is calling on man to deny God ... furthermore as the gift turned out to be no gift at all, quite the opposite in fact (precisely as God had informed man) the giver is also a liar, a deceiver of the first order.

I fail to see how anything founded on the denial of God and a denial of the Divine will, can be considered in any positive light?

Thus the so-called 'gifts' of Lucifer, or his cohort, and in fdact any presentation of the Luciferian principle as positive or beneficial, surely points to the success of the antichrist in making his plan 'acceptable' ... another sign of the glamour and attraction of evil.

I would suggest you check out the Anonymous Author on this subject, and on the symbol of the Serpent, which poiunts to a tragic fault in the thinking of HPB and the like.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Quote:
"Whitsuntide [Pentecost] belongs in a spiritual sense to Easter, is, in a spiritual sense, connected with Easter, and is inseparable from Easter. This Holy Spirit is none other than the re-risen Luciferic Spirit, resurrrected now in a new and higher glory. He is the spirit of Self-reliant, wisdom-filled knowledge. The re-risen Lucifer carries the torch before the Christ. Lucifer, now transformed to the good, bears the Christ Himself. Christ is the Light--Lucifer is the Light-bearer."
Arenson, Adolf. Lucifer: Two lectures by Adolf Arenson: Stuttgart 1933. Spring Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1992 p. 21

So the Holy Spirit is relegated to a term for Lucifer, who now occupies the third place in the Trinity?

My my, I bet the celebration in the infernal regions went on into the wee small hours after they managed to get someone to buy that one.

It used to be that Satan was working flat out to get people to believe he doesn't exist, but having done that, the next logical step is getting people to believe he's a good guy, really.

I'm all for people 'redefining' terms — Christianity has comprehensively redefined Greek metaphysics — but when someone sells you the idea that the principle which defines the ontology of all that is wrong in the world is in fact right ... without addressing the ontological origin ...

Where, where in Christian teaching is Lucifer in any sense a good guy?

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So the Holy Spirit is relegated to a term for Lucifer, who now occupies the third place in the Trinity?

My my, I bet the celebration in the infernal regions went on into the wee small hours after they managed to get someone to buy that one.

It used to be that Satan was working flat out to get people to believe he doesn't exist, but having done that, the next logical step is getting people to believe he's a good guy, really.

I'm all for people 'redefining' terms — Christianity has comprehensively redefined Greek metaphysics — but when someone sells you the idea that the principle which defines the ontology of all that is wrong in the world is in fact right ... without addressing the ontological origin ...

Where, where in Christian teaching is Lucifer in any sense a good guy?

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

Do you really believe that Satan is some anthropomorphic critter? And that their are infernal regions where there is a party? For a thousand years heaven was purported to be up there...and hell down there... And now when we've discovered this completely in error have we just moved it to some other place??

When Jesus told Peter 'get behind me Satan' do we think Satan had entered Peter, or that Peter was Satan?? Or do we just think that he was telling Peter to knock off the negative thinking?

Satan to me is the aspect of our psyche that closes the curtains to the light of G-d. It isn't something else we can blame for our trials and tribulations it is us, trying to take some lazy, easy, underhanded way out and avoiding personal responsibility.

And yes Hell is our creation when wallowing in negativity or separating ourselves from G-d and yes realizing our connection to G-d through the Christ spirit within is exactly how Jesus saves us from ourselves....not some nasty critter.

[AndrewX]

For clarification, I never said that Roman Catholicism mentions the Sanskrit term `kumara.' I simply said that the same Order of Beings is referred to, or designated, by the penultimate tier in the Angelic Hierarchy - which is recognized by the RCC. Why on earth WOULD they call them Kumaras???

As for terminology, what Tradition shall we quote in referring to the Chief Kumara, or the Greatest of the ~105 Who came to us from Venus some 18 (or 16, or 21) million years ago? We can quibble over a span of some 5 million years, but whose tradition was even AROUND then, to record this most significant event in Humanity's history - her BIRTH???

None, I tell you. Only a pre-existent, or Earth-apportioned Order of Beings, or several such, would have been present to RECORD (vide LIPIKIA LORDs, or Lords of Karma) this momentous event.

Nor would a C-R forum have been conveniently on hand to record the gradual descent of the Kumara - that Individuality (a single Being of advanced evolutionary stature) we call `Lucifer' - Who "fell" ... yet who, unlike his Brothers, did NOT make, or has not yet made, the corresponding ASCENT from matter back to Spirit.

The Gnostic teaching is helpful here, but confusing or misleading if one tries to swallow it whole hog. At least it's better than the misinterpreted doctrine of the descent of the Christ into matter, the `crucifixion' (or Renunciation), and Christ's Resurrection & Ascension again. I mean - just look what the churches have made of it ...

CHURCHIANITY!!!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Do you really believe that Satan is some anthropomorphic critter?

First and foremost a principle, a possibility and a potentiality within the created order that can only be realised by a free decision of a self-determining will ...

... once a possibility or potentiality is made 'real' in any given domain, it becomes 'embodied' according to that domain.

Do I believe Satan to be an 'anthropomorphic critter' no – much more than that — I do believe there is a 'presence' and that presence can adopt individual or a collective form.

Originally Posted by wil

And that their are infernal regions where there is a party? For a thousand years heaven was purported to be up there...and hell down there... And now when we've discovered this completely in error have we just moved it to some other place??

I was speaking metaphorically.

Originally Posted by wil

When Jesus told Peter 'get behind me Satan' do we think Satan had entered Peter, or that Peter was Satan?? Or do we just think that he was telling Peter to knock off the negative thinking?

I think Jesus was saying that we should get our house in order. We are all human, and therefore we are all subject to temptation, but we should not give in. That is one exegesis of what he was saying.

Another view is that, Jesus Christ being who He is, in a sense he is 'enemy no1' of the Adversary, who will be ever ready to utilise any failing against him, in himself, or in those around Him.

To distract a driver say, so that a donkey cart mounts the kerb and Christ is accidentally killed in a tragic accident, is not the way it works. Rather the Adversary works to subvert the natural order of things...

Originally Posted by wil

Satan to me is the aspect of our psyche that closes the curtains to the light of G-d. It isn't something else we can blame for our trials and tribulations it is us, trying to take some lazy, easy, underhanded way out and avoiding personal responsibility.

Indeed not, but Satan is the objectification of that tendency, and as a psychic object, is added to each tie any individual 'feeds' or 'adds' to it.

Thomas

[wil]

I see the adversary as choice...the old free will thing.

"The devil made me do it" ~Geraldine Wilson

The devil didn't make her or us do anything...we choose to break commandments, we choose to cheat and lie, we choose to take advantage...
I've met the enemy and I am he.

Personal responsibility....why do we build religions to avoid it?