Decolonizing Luciferianism: No Such Thing As Religion

This isn’t going to be a comfortable conversation.

It’s not an attack either.

I’m going to call out a lot of things here and give my suggestions for how we can do better.

You are free to take them or leave them.

Lest you think me a hypocrite, self-righteous, or a gatekeeper, know that virtually everything I am going to talk about I have been guilty of myself in the past.

This is about self-examination as much as navigating the difficult conversations Luciferians, Satanists, witches, occultists, whatever you want to call yourself, need to have.

Yes, this is directed at the Luciferian community, but it’s applicable way
beyond that.

So, let’s dig in…

What would you say if someone were to ask you to define religion?

Merriam-Webster gives us:

“the belief in a god or in a group of gods” and “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.”

This is probably pretty close to how most raised in a “Western” culture tend to think about religion. When asked to describe their religion, most will begin talking about what they believe, they will discuss views on deities and the afterlife. They would also likely tend to think about and describe their religion and those of others as systems that can be thought of and engaged separately from the cultures that created them.

Most of all they would talk about “organized” or “institutionalized” religion.

They will say things like “I’m spiritual but not religious.” But what if I told you all of this, the whole concept, is a new one? That it is something completely made up in the 18th and 19th century by white Christians?

This is exactly what is argued by scholars such as Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Timothy Fitzgerald, among others.

Smith tracks the development of our modern conceptions of religion from ancient times to modern in his work “The Meaning and End of Religion.” Here he shows how the Latin word “religio” simply meant one’s duties to family and community.

He shows that our conception of religion as something that can be thought of as separate from culture is false. Notice how vastly different that concept is to how we think about it now. Before the invention of religion as a concept every spiritual tradition was an “ethno-religion.”

That is to say that your culture determined your spiritual expression, it was a lived communal experience not an individualist choice. I strongly suggest these authors and their work, my concern involves the application of these ideas to Luciferian Spirituality.

Firstly, we need to recognize that most critiques of religion in western culture are really veiled critiques of a narrow form of Christianity. We should recognize and take greater care not to make blanket statements about sacred traditions, especially when those faiths have literally billions of adherents over periods of thousands of years. We need to be careful not to throw progressive members of such faiths under the bus nor the members of oppressed groups. I completely understand the history of church oppression and the very real trauma myself and others have and continue to experience at the hands of the church and other related faiths. It is 100% valid. But there is also nothing healthy about lashing out against others who have nothing to do with that, nothing liberatory.

Secondly, if we as Luciferians truly embrace the concept of liberation for ourselves and all people then we find ourselves in a position where we must confront issues like decolonization and, within that, issues of cultural appropriation. If we as Luciferians embrace the notion that it is part of our practice to break church based social conditioning, then I would argue that a reconsideration of our fundamental concept of religion is a great starting point for both of these things!

What happens when this modern conception of religion meets with global capitalism?

The commodification of spiritual traditions.

The shopping for sacred practices as though one were trying on clothing at a store to find just the right fit, mixing and matching for surface aesthetic expression.

Note that I am not condemning responsible approaches to eclecticism and syncretization here, but I am suggesting that:

a. one cannot easily pull practices from other traditions out of their context without losing something

b. if one’s intent is spiritual advancement and enlightenment it is not very productive to be making a spiritual “map” to somewhere you’ve never been out of pieces of other people’s “maps!”

c. we need to listen to and respect the communities whose traditions we engage with, listening and centering those voices, particularly when those groups are historically oppressed.

This obviously brings us to the controversial subject of cultural appropriation.

Cultural appropriation is the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of elements of one culture by that of another more dominant culture. This IS a real problem and issue that needs to be addressed in our community.

The arguments that have arisen on social media because of this subject, however, have risen to ridiculous and often disgusting levels. These arguments rely on poor understanding of the subjects in question and on individualist attempts at policing others behavior resulting in people simply digging their heels in when what is needed here is collective consensus building and encouragement towards individual introspection and learning on the topics.

Having seen far too often mainly well-meaning white liberals failing as often as conservatives when discussing these topics, I believe if you:

a. cannot define cultural appropriation or recognize that consensual cultural diffusion also
occurs inevitably when cultures contact and that such sharing is good,

b. do not understand the subjects you are attempting to police

c. are attempting to police a subject about which there is no general consensus

d. doesn’t understand the difference between open, closed and partially closed practices (it’s not always just an on/off switch)

…you’re not going to be a particularly good ally to oppressed groups on these subjects and are going to do more harm than good.

Defining what is appropriative is, as I said, a matter of collective consensus building and that work is mostly to be done by oppressed groups themselves in conjunction with the best scholars available on the subjects, not relying on the whims of random individuals on the internet.

So, let’s examine some of the key issues where Luciferians could do better.

When it comes to appropriation there are two big areas where several prominent Luciferian figures are in problematic territory or could be accused of it: the misuse of eastern mystical traditions and in the relationship between Luciferianism and Judaism.

First, let’s talk about the relationship between Luciferianism and various forms of eastern spirituality. I think the biggest area to focus on here is Tantra. Far too many Luciferian writers blend and take from Tantric tradition irresponsibly. Or, rather, they try to, as much of what they are pulling from is not even authentic Tantra, its neo-tantra, which is a sexualized, westernized mix of Tantric ideas, yoga, and New Age thinking. One can easily tell this by the complete lack of lineage in such writers work, their repurposing of the 7-chakra system.

Actual Tantra, depending on whether it is Buddhist, Hindu and on what lineage can have anywhere from 5 to 14 major chakras, the 7-chakra system comes from classical yoga and first gained prominence from a text from 1577.

See scholar/practitioner Chris Wallis (Trika/Krama lineage of Saivite Tantra) discussing this:
https://hareesh.org/blog/2016/2/5/the-real-story-on-the-chakras.

It had nothing to do with snakes or dragons originally, Wallis discusses the history of kundalini here: https://hareesh.org/blog/2022/1/31/the-real-story-on-kundalini

You can see this kind of poor understanding clearly in the systems of the Dragon Rouge and Temple of Ascending Flame as well as the writing of Michael W. Ford who goes further and creates the even more absurd “Ahrimanic Yoga” as if stealing from India wasn’t enough, Iran had to get ripped off too! Not surprisingly, fraud E. A. Koetting is guilty here as well.

The misinformation and ignorance just keeps getting worse as evidenced by so called “chakra removal” being pushed by some internet personalities.

Now, there is particularly good reason Luciferian inclined people are attracted to Tantric practice and I encourage respectful study and engagement with it.

There are parallels in thinking, and the practices of Tantra complement Luciferian practice extremely well, but I think there’s a responsible way of doing this. One can practice as a dual observance: pick a lineage, learn from a qualified teacher and if you are serious get properly initiated, do not syncretize these traditions at all unless you are advanced in both traditions, and always give credit to the actual sources of these teachings and practices.

I think we should also drop the use of the term “Left Hand Path” and the use of eastern terminology in general to describe Luciferianism.

The use of the term Left Hand has been annihilated in western usage from Blavatsky to everyone after her repeating it.

I used to think the solution was to simply push people to use it correctly and responsibly and if you know its actual meaning and use more power to ya but most don’t, and the damage is done, and I don’t think the term is needed anyway. There’s no reason to borrow a term we don’t need or understand from another culture….unless we’re trying to sound exotic and authoritative.

Second, let’s start examining the relationship between Judaism and Luciferianism. Let’s start by being honest as to the origins of Luciferianism as a spiritual tradition: it grows primarily out of resistance to an oppressive church hierarchy, inside a Christian cultural context that it cannot be simply separated from. It makes sense and is valid within that context and it is valid in its interpretation of its myths.

Judaism as well is valid and makes sense within the historical and cultural context in which it grew. Jewish people are not “wrong” in interpreting their scriptures the way they do. We should be aiming for mutual respect. Just because groups disagree doesn’t mean either is “wrong.” If you cannot intelligently discuss the differences between Christianity and Jewish interpretations of their scriptures you have no business condemning them and given that Jewish spirituality and Jewish culture and ethnicity cannot be easily separated you can easily stray into antisemitic territory.

Be very careful.

If you demonize the Jewish god you are easily heading into antisemitic territory. It’s a very easy step to go from demonizing a deity to demonizing those who worship it. Do not do that. Make a clear distinction between the god of the oppressive church that you actually oppose and respect other progressive interpretations in other faiths.

Luciferianism is heavily influenced by Gnostic ideas and again, one needs to be careful here and I encourage those who want to honor those influences take a more Valentinian approach to interpreting the Demiurge. One where the material creator is seen as an important and necessary part of the creation process. Not necessarily morally “good” but not inherently
“evil” either. There is again far too much of this problem in established writers and groups, again Michael W. Ford comes to mind and is all the worse for his early fascist ties via the Order of Nine Angles, and again E.A. Koetting for much the same.

See:

https://mythoughtsbornfromfire.wordpress.com/2021/08/07/we-need-to-talk-about-e-a-koetting-and-
also-michael-w-ford/

The various anti-cosmic trends within Luciferianism/Satanism, such as all those descended from Current 218 and the Temple of Black Light, are also guilty of such demonization.

Now, given that Luciferianism grows from a Christian cultural context, and one that reinterprets the myths of an oppressive church system, it inherently shares heritage with Christianity even as it reacts to it, and again given that Christianity has a great deal of Jewish originating concepts, scriptures and practices, Luciferianism does too.

The history of Christian and Jewish interaction and determining what has been freely shared and what has been egregiously appropriated by Europeans, is a mess to say the least; there’s probably many areas we will never know for sure. Again, I have heard several poorly understood claims being made here as well. I have heard Luciferians (and Satanists and other witches) should not work with Goetic demons, should not engage with Lilith, should not engage with Hermetic Qabalah, that these are all part of Jewish closed practice or are appropriated. Based on my understanding and study I strongly disagree.

The idea that only Jewish people should work with Goetia ignores the strongly Christian context of much of that material and the ultimately Greek roots of much of that practice in the Greek Magical Papyri and it dangerously reiterates the antisemitic trope that Jewish people are Satanic demon worshipers.

The idea that only Jewish people should work with Lilith fails to understand that she was already a part of Christian demonology long before Luciferians showed up. She can actually be found as early as the “Mirror of Lilith” rite described in the Munich Handbook of Necromancy explored in Richard Kieckhefer’s “Forbidden Rites.”

Although she may share a name we are not even talking about the same entity.

She is not some baby stealing monster to us; she is more like a dark and empowered version of the Gnostic Sophia if anything.

Jewish people are 100% valid to interpret their Lilith their way. But ours is valid in our very different context. I will add that while I agree it is totally possible to appropriate specific practices and teachings, the idea that anyone, individually or as a group, can own a sentient being, as spirits of most sorts are generally considered to be, seems profoundly unethical. Spirits and deities, much like humans, are not commodities, they are not intellectual property anyone can copyright. It is bizarre to me that people would treat spiritual beings so disrespectfully.

Finally, Hermetic Qabalah.

There are 3 different systems that need to be distinguished here.

There is the original Jewish Kabbalah, which is its own complete system specific to Judaism.

There is Christian Cabala, which is a pretty clear example of disgusting appropriation: created by the church to convert Jewish people to Christianity!

There is finally Hermetic Qabalah, a separate system produced in the Renaissance that shares some structures and names with the Jewish version but is heavily syncretized with Hermeticism, alchemy, astrology, Christian mysticism, and pre-Christian polytheism.

This system is foundational to most of the western occult and New Age. It is in every Rider Waite influenced Tarot Deck, it is the foundation of most of the Golden Dawn and Thelema and every tradition derived from or influenced by them. It is quite removed from the Jewish Kabbalah not merely in theory but practice. Luciferianism has again its own way of interpreting the Hermetic Qabalistic system which is, yet another step removed. As I said it is often difficult to even determine what was shared or appropriated from the period of development in question, so it is impossible to conceive how a system unrecognizable in its many differences and so far removed remains an example of problematic appropriation.

But what Luciferians can do here is give respect and credit to the roots of where this material came from.

Further, there is often not even a consensus within the Jewish community on these particular subjects.

There are Jewish witches and Luciferians of Jewish descent right now who work with all of these things and maintain they are not closed. Even views on the nature of Lilith within Judaism are not settled with Jewish feminists such as Judith Plaskow having established alternate interpretations of her.

So, I think it’s clear by now everyone needs to stay away from blanket statements in regards to spiritual practices and the people who practice them.

One thing Luciferians and occultists in general can do to respect Jewish culture is not use the Tetragrammaton in their rites. Don’t pronounce it, don’t spell it out. Yahweh and Jehovah and YHVH aren’t any better. So, remove them from any magick circles or incantations.

Generally, replace with Adonai or the word Tetragrammaton itself if you must refer to this being.

As Luciferians we have a lot of work to do in our community, there is far too little accountability, far too much misinformation, and far too much colonizer mindsets.

My hope that articles like this can help to start necessary hard conversations and self-examination for us all, myself included.

Confronting these things means taking a hard look inward as much around one.

It’s uncomfortable but all growth is and there is no liberation without growth.

And we are Luciferians, liberation is our calling.

LUCIFER: The Many Faced God

Lucifer 2

 

Image: Mezamero, DeviantArt

“Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

Saul D. Alinsky

This is an extremely important blog because so many folks demonize this figure I have come to respect. The irony is, people generally have never really attempted to look outside what they were told in the Bible, or other religious texts.

They drank the kool aid without question.

Blind faith is dangerous.

Since I seem to be the target lately for those wishing to challenge, question or ridicule me, I am going to talk about the deity whose name my Philosophy bears, but I also want to dissect different texts.

I hope that you take the time to read this, and it grants some enlightenment.

First thing first, I don’t believe in the Devil, I believe in a collective energy that is Satan and think of it as title not an actual being.

The name Satan comes from the Hebrew word HaSatan, which appears in the books Zecaria and Job.

The name Satan is only mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) twice.

Satan appears as a central character in the Holy Bible, and Jewish Mysticism such as Kaballah, and the Talmud (academic and scholarly notes on the Torah that form Jewish Law).

I have found that there is some degree of truth in all belief systems, and I have always thought that if you were to take pieces from each, and put them together into one story, that is where you will find the truth of all truths.

Let’s side track for two seconds.

Have you ever thought about that?

What if the actual story, the real names, and the truth were scattered piece by intricate piece into different fables, fairy tales, and religious text?

Is it so farfetched to ask this question?

I don’t think so.

I believe that Lucifer is three things: an Archetype, an actual deity, and the most brilliant metaphor.

The Archetype is that of rebellion, free thinking, enlightenment, knowledge, shadow self, non-conformity, illumination. If we follow (not worship) His path we find freedom, peace, and become one with our true selves; thus the individual is born.

The metaphor is the tale of how God’s most perfect and most favored Angel fell from grace, and was damned to Hell.

I think the moral of the story is He chose to fall from grace in order to help humanity.

Being raised Roman Catholic for some of my childhood, I admired Him; I thought, “wow, He was damned but managed to create His own Kingdom without God. Without fear.”

Jewish mythology states that He is the morning star, bringer of light; the Greeks refer to him in a similar story with the Grigori but using the names Samyaza, Azazel (Azayzel) and/or Samael as the leader of the rebellion.

In any regard, He is a bringer of light (knowledge).

Associations/correspondences can be drawn to the story of Prometheus, as well. Or, the Roman Goddess Venus.

The stories of Lucifer are many and each intricate like a web.

It’s through these stories that Lucifer became synonymous with being “the Adversary”.

The Adversary, like Satan, is a collection of energy not one deity or Spirit, in my opinion.

Judeo-Christian mythology is full of brilliant metaphors; all religions are.

So, besides being trolled today in the comment section due to my recently published WITCH Article, this blog was inspired by a comment left on my ‘The Way of the Daemon’ blog  (yes, from a few years ago).

Here is the comment:

“Lucifer isn’t a demon nor a fallen angel. He’s the Latin version of the Greek god pantheon, named Phospherous (modern english spelling). St Jerome stuck the Latin “Lucifer” into hebrew scripture in the Vulgate via translatIng from the Greek LXX, i.e. the Alexandrian Septuagent. In their ignorance, Christians distort Isa 14:12, the only verse with “lucifer” in it in the entire Judeo-Christian bible. The “bearer of light” is not the “prince of darkness”, nor dark in any manner. While Satan is a title rather than a name, the name of Shaitan (Islam) was Iblis, and said to have been Azayzel before that. Likewise, it’s thought by some that, in Judeo-christianity, Azayzel or Samael was the name of Satan before he aquired that (in my opinion, ‘honorific’) title. In any event, the name of a Judeo-Christian angel before falling from grace would necessarily be something ending in -el, meaning a servant of the semetic head god. Names of angels include Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Samael, Azayzel, etc. “Lucifer” simply does not fit the “-el” pattern.

Hail Satan.”

This is partially true, for me.

I do not believe Lucifer to be a Daemon, or an Angel but a God.

He is the Father of Man.

He is Phosphoros.

Lucifer is only mentioned in one verse in the Bible (yes, that is correct) and in that ONE verse He was referred to as son of the morning, or the morning star.

But, many scholars believe when taken in context this refers to a Babylonian King:

‘How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!’

Isaiah 14:12

The name Lucifer does not appear again in the bible, but the term morning star and other references do appear throughout the Old Testament:

‘O that I could be as I was in the months now gone, in the days when God watched over me, when he caused his lamp TO SHINE upon my head, and by his light I walked through darkness.’

Job 29:2-3

‘Its snorting THROWS OUT FLASHES of light; its eyes are like the red glow of dawn.’

Job 41:18

‘So we labored in the work, with half holding spears, from the rising of THE MORNING till the stars appeared.’

Nehemiah 4:21

Here is an excerpt from another writer, I will link at the bottom:

“The Hebrew phrase in Isaiah 14:12 means the shining/brightness born of the morning/dawn. What is that shining brightness? It could be the rays of the sun but it could also be the day star or morning star, Venus, which is how some translations render it. Notice that there is nothing like the word Lucifer in Hebrew. In the Greek translation known as the Septuagint, heilel is rendered eosphorus. So even in the Greek, there’s nothing like the word.”

“How then did Lucifer get into the Bible? The word is actually Latin. It comes from the words lux (light/fire) and ferre (to bear/to bring) and when put together means bearer of light or bringer of fire. Lucifer is also one of the Latin names for the morning star, Venus. As it turns out, so is the Greek word Eosphorus.”

‘At length as the Morning Star (Eosphorus) was beginning to herald the light which saffron-mantled Dawn was soon to suffuse over the sea, the flames fell and the fire began to die.’

Homer, The Iliad, Book 23

‘And after these Erigenia bare the star Eosphorus, and the gleaming stars with which heaven is crowned.’

Hesiod, Theogony

“When Jerome translated the biblical manuscripts in his Latin Vulgate, he believed the shining born of the dawn in Isaiah spoke of the morning star and so replaced the Hebrew and Greek meaning with the Latin name of the planet. If we were to do the same with our modern day translations, we would write how you have fallen from heaven, O Venus, son of the morning. Jerome actually used the word lucifer in several places in his translation. The following are a few examples of its occurrence as taken from the Clementine Vulgate. Lucifer appears in parentheses.”

Et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam; et cum te consumptum putaveris, orieris ut (lucifer).

Job 11:17

Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, (Lucifer), qui mane oriebaris ? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?

Isaiah 14:12

Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et (lucifer) oriatur in cordibus vestries

2 Peter 1:19

“Notice that Lucifer is used in 2 Peter 1:19 in Jerome’s Vulgate just as it is used in Isaiah 14:12 to replace the Hebrew heilel.” Here is the English:

Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

2 Peter 1:19

“The morning star rising in the hearts of Yahweh’s people is a direct reference to Numbers 24:172 and describes the coming of Christ. The Greek word for morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 is eosphoros. If you recall, this is the same word used by the writers of the Septuagint to translate heilel in Isaiah 14:12 and is the name of the planet Venus in Greek. If Lucifer is a correct rendering in Isaiah 14:12, then it is correct in 2 Peter 1:19 also (just as Jerome translates it). And so we have the first place where scripture calls Yeshua Lucifer. But that is not the only place.”

And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end I will give him the morning star.

Revelation 2:26a, 28b

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!

Revelation 22:16

“A word for the morning star in Latin, as we have seen, is Lucifer. So according to Yeshua’s own words, not only will those who follow him receive Lucifer, but Lucifer is a name for Yeshua himself. There is even more reason to believe that Lucifer is an appropriate translation in Revelation 22:16 because the Greek in that verse is orthrinos aster, which is a Greek epithet for Venus.”

“So in conclusion, Lucifer is another name for Venus, Eosphorus, and Heilel. It describes the second planet, the morning star. While Yeshua is metaphorically likened to it in 2 Peter and Revelation, King Nebuchadnezzar receives this honor in Isaiah 14. Unfortunately, Satan is never given such distinction.”

Interesting, right? There’s more, here is another perspective and translation breakdown:

“One of the most slanderous, ignorant, and utterly false accusations that has been repeatedly directed at H.P. Blavatsky and against Theosophists in general over the years is the claim that Theosophy is a form of Satanism and that Madame Blavatsky was a devil worshipper.”

“Those accusations and condemnations originate primarily from the realm of Christianity and from those of its adherents who believe in a personal anthropomorphic God and a personal anthropomorphic devil, the supposed enemy of that God.”

“Considering the fact that Lucifer and Satan have come to be viewed as synonymous terms and names for the same entity, it is not too hard to see why our Christian friends have jumped to such a conclusion, seeing as the Theosophical magazine started in England in the late 1880s by HPB was titled “Lucifer” and that in her masterpiece work “The Secret Doctrine” she speaks of Lucifer in positive and glowing terms.”

Blavatsky breaks down the Lucifer metaphor brilliantly (duh), so I am going to quote her, but first I am going to drop in some fun facts about Lucifer and the origins of the name:

“The word “Lucifer” occurs only once in the entire Bible. This is in Isaiah 14:12, which says: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Those who read this verse in its actual context will clearly see that the sentence is applied specifically to a certain Babylonian king who was an enemy in war of the Israelites. The original Hebrew text uses the word הֵילֵל which literally means “bright star” or “shining one,” a term applied sarcastically or mockingly by the Israelites to this particular enemy of theirs. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible – one of the chief of whom was the well-known Rosicrucian initiate Dr. Robert Fludd, a fact which will no doubt shock and horrify many Christians – chose to translate this word with the Latin word “Lucifer.”

In this translation, and from this Author’s point of view they believe that the term “bright star” or the reference of the morning star is a negative term, and used as a sign of disrespect. This proves there is no right or wrong in anything, merely opinion, and perspective.

“Lucifer literally means Lightbringer, Lightbearer, Bringer of Dawn, Shining One, or Morning Star. The word has no other meaning. Historically and astronomically, the term “Morning Star” has always been applied to the planet Venus.”

“Since the only occurrence of the word “Lucifer” in the Bible is that one verse in Isaiah, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible which says that Lucifer is Satan or the devil. It was Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) who was the first person to apply that passage of scripture to Satan and thus to equate Lucifer with Satan. But even then this notion didn’t catch on in a big way until the much more recent popularization of John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” in which Lucifer is used as another name for Satan, the evil adversary of God. Also, such luminaries of the Christian world as Martin Luther and John Calvin considered it “a gross error” to apply Isaiah 14:12 to the devil, “for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians.”

“Thus the Christians who claim that Lucifer is the devil actually have no Biblical basis or authority for such a belief. Though they may claim to be “Bible believing Christians” whose faith is built solely on “the Word of God” they are actually followers – in this and many other respects – of Christian religious tradition and not of the Christian Bible. Or have they quietly conferred divine infallibility upon the Pope and Milton without informing the rest of the world?”

Blavatsky’s Lucifer metaphor:

“Esoteric philosophy admits neither good nor evil per se, as existing independently in nature. The cause for both is found, as regards the Kosmos [Cosmos], in the necessity of contraries or contrasts, and with respect to man, in his human nature, his ignorance and passions. There is no devil or the utterly depraved, as there are no Angels absolutely perfect, though there may be spirits of Light and of Darkness; thus LUCIFER – the spirit of Intellectual Enlightenment and Freedom of Thought – is metaphorically the guiding beacon, which helps man to find his way through the rocks and sandbanks of Life, for Lucifer is the LOGOS in his highest, and the “Adversary” in his lowest aspect – both of which are reflected in our Ego.” (Vol. 2, p. 162)

“In antiquity and reality, Lucifer, or Luciferus, is the name of the angelic Entity presiding over the light of truth as over the light of the day. In the great Valentinian gospel Pistis Sophia it is taught that of the three Powers emanating from the Holy names of the Three Tριδυνάμεις, that of Sophia (the Holy Ghost according to these Gnostics – the most cultured of all) resides in the planet Venus or Lucifer.” (Vol. 2, p. 512)

“It is but natural – even from the dead letter standpoint – to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: “in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” – can only be regarded in the light of a Savior. An “adversary” to Jehovah the “personating spirit,” he still remains in esoteric truth the ever-loving “Messenger” (the angel), the Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality – the latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man into an undying “Wandering Jew”.” (Vol. 2, p. 243)

“The Fall was the result of man’s knowledge, for his “eyes were opened.” Indeed, he was taught Wisdom and the hidden knowledge by the “Fallen Angel,” for the latter had become from that day his Manas, Mind and Self-consciousness. In each of us that golden thread of continuous life – periodically broken into active and passive cycles of sensuous existence on Earth, and super-sensuous in Devachan – is from the beginning of our appearance upon this earth. It is the Sutratma, the luminous thread of immortal impersonal monadship, on which our earthly lives or evanescent Egos are strung as so many beads – according to the beautiful expression of Vedantic philosophy.”

“And now it stands proven that Satan, or the Red Fiery Dragon, the “Lord of Phosphorus” (brimstone was a theological improvement), and Lucifer, or “Light-Bearer,” is in us: it is our Mind – our tempter and Redeemer, our intelligent liberator and Savior from pure animalism. Without this principle – the emanation of the very essence of the pure divine principle Mahat (Intelligence), which radiates direct from the Divine mind – we would be surely no better than animals.” (Vol. 2, p. 513)

May the Black Flame illuminate your path.

Sources:

http://www.echoofeden.com/bias/lucifer/

http://blavatskytheosophy.com/lucifer-the-lightbringer/