The Archetypal Lucifer: Bringer of Light, Adversary, Enigma? [Part 2]

Freemasonry reveres the Light, which illuminates and chases away the darkness of ignorance. As a “bringer of light,” Lucifer can be a touchy subject, particularly in relation to Freemasonry, because Masons have been accused of devil worship by various groups, including conspiracy theorists. What follows is Part II of the post on the Archetypal Lucifer. [Part One can be read here.]

---

Where else does the Lucifer archetype manifest in humanity, both within and without, in culture and in self? From this point forward, I go beyond the factual, historical roots of Lucifer, and explore the concept more speculatively. Because Lucifer and Satan have been so conflated throughout history, I will refer to the merged concept as Lucifer-Satan. As always, this post is only the reflections of one mason, and does not represent the official views of Universal Co-Masonry. 

Lucifer: Shadow and Light

As the Lucifer-Satan archetype is partly personified by a glorification of the intellect, I believe that one manifestation of it is the worldview of philosophical materialism, or scientism, the belief that all that is real are the phenomena we can measure and study with science. This worldview is personified by regarding only the the mental and the animal aspects of human existence as real, viewing humans as essentially a clever monkey ultimately made of meaningless space dust, and a corresponding rejection of spirit or immaterial aspects to reality or humanity. This fits quite well with the Lucifer-Satan archetype’s association with knowledge, moral relativist, or even nihilistic point of view, and position of opposition to religious authority. 

However, I believe that to stop here would be a mistake; the purely objective intellect, regarding the world outside the finite self/mind as solely made up of dead and unconscious matter to be controlled for the perpetuation of mind and hedonistic pleasure is only one embodiment of this archetype. I believe that it exists beyond the boundaries of the materialists’ denial of all things “supernatural,” it is something more universal.

In fact, one of the places that the Lucifer-Satan archetype is alive and well most openly is within certain of the “dark” magical arts and practices, where Lucifer-Satan as a deity figure may at times be seen as an underdog of personal power and liberty, rejected by a spiritual authority seeking always to subjugate its creation. This loosely correlates also to a view shared by some branches of Gnosticism. All of these represent a view of Lucifer-Satan which goes beyond scientific materialism, clearly indicating that the archetype is more broad than that particular manifestation.

Masonic Interpretations of Lucifer 

What about a masonic view of Lucifer? Manly P. Hall, famously wrote in his book The Lost Keys of Freemasonry:

When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands, and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather…. who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare.

This passage has often been used as evidence by some to say that Freemasons are secretly a bunch of devil-worshipping satanists. It might even be enough to give a mason unfamiliar with it some pause; what exactly did Brother Hall mean by the “seething energies of Lucifer”?To an uninformed reader, and taken out of context, this statement might sound a bit nefarious, especially given the cultural context of the conflation of Lucifer and Satan, as an embodiment of evil. 

More likely, Brother Hall is drawing upon a more Gnostic perspective on Lucifer, such as that it represents the latent life-force energy, described in the East as Kundalini, dwelling “underground” and in the “darkness” of lower aspects of the self (literally in the lower body), which can be stirred and lifted by certain practices to travel through the various energy centers. Another facet of some Gnostic views is that Lucifer is the other side of the Christ aspect of the self, which rings true based on the origins of the archetype. If Lucifer/Satan is the primary antagonist of the story from which the archetype originates, we shouldn’t ignore the role of the protagonist, and all that he represents, as well. So, how does Lucifer relate to Christ, in the self?

This Gnostic account of Lucifer is as both carrier of the light, and tempter of the divine self represented by Christ; indeed, Satan (the “adversary” angel, in Hebrew) did tempt Christ during his fast in the forest, in the biblical account. This view posits that Lucifer represents both the energy within the self, and the temptation to waste that energy, working together with Christ in an antagonistic interplay within the self, to raise up and purify the fundamental raw potency contained in the lower half of the person, the generative organs and the gut. This paints an image of Lucifer as a force which ensures purity in the self, just as he was the prosecutor of Job to test his faith, in the old testament.

Alchemically, we could say perhaps that this is like an acid or solvent, which eats away all that is not gold. As such, this idea of Lucifer is as a force which guarantees that the self has evolved beyond the desires and temptations of the lower aspects of our animal nature before allowing it to become possessed of divine radiance, by tempting it at every turn. This includes the temptations which come at the highest levels of development. 

Satan as Lucifer’s Folly?

Some masonic authors have extended an explanation that Lucifer and Satan are not the same, but are two very different ideas which have been conflated due to translation errors and historical inaccuracies, as alluded to earlier in this post. By this account, the term Lucifer is exactly what the etymology of the word implies: an archetypal Light Bearer, a bearer of spiritual Light, which would be represented by any of the known Light Bearers of history, including Jesus Christ himself, and is what each Freemason aspires to be. Essentially, it is the idea that a person can serve as a bridge between the divine and man, that an individual can be the bearer of God’s Light for the world, perhaps after undergoing the temptation/purification process described by the Gnostics. 

I find this to be an inherently satisfying and rational explanation, but I also find myself feeling the need to take pause, before becoming too complacent with this particular understanding. Reflecting upon all that has happened with the idea of Lucifer, chiefly becoming conflated with the embodiment of all evil, one has to wonder: perhaps the archetype of Lucifer-Satan is more meaningful than simply being a human error in the interpretation of scriptures and other texts? Perhaps Lucifer-Satan is, indeed, an archetype of a fallen Light Bearer?

Warning from the Sutras

One embodiment of this which I believe may lend some clarity is in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. A particular description is given of those advanced Yogis who attained abilities which we would identify as psychic powers, or siddhis in Sanskrit, through the practice of extreme concentration, or Samadhi, but without overcoming the personal attachments of their baser nature and desires. Having not given proper attention to the taming of the lower self before attaining Samadhi, the selfish and attached mind that had achieved the siddhis became lost in the fulfillment of their desires. In other words, they learned to use their inherent divine capabilities, without attaining true wisdom. Ultimately, this results in their merging with the object of their desires at the end of their mortal life, and being locked into the material world itself as a kind of elemental spirit, rather than achieving liberation. This is also very similar to the dark shaman. 

I think that this idea encapsulates the essence of the Lucifer-Satan archetype quite well, even resonating with the theme of his being cast down and bound to matter. Just like Prometheus being bound to the stone, or Lucifer-Satan being cast into Hell, this fall from grace of the Light Bearer could be an archetypal warning against the perils of succumbing to one’s own ego-based attachments and lower nature, as one advances along the spiritual path. This would include the desire for and fixation on sense pleasures, power, control, and positions of superiority. 

If I attempt to distill this idea down to its essence, it might be something like: “The limited self attempting to become God, without realizing that it already is.” It’s the attempt of the finite self to have God-like perception and power, but without sacrificing all of the entrapments of the finite self’s desires, attachments, and need for control. This is the desire to be the ultimate divinely ordained King, Ruler of the Universe, and to think that one knows better than the silent, seemingly passive transcendent God. As pointed out by Manly P. Hall, mythically, this transition occurred the moment when Lucifer thought that he knew better than God how to operate creation, and that he should take over. On the other hand, in the story of Christ, it was surpassed the moment that Christ was offered this position, but turned it down.

Lucifer and the Temptation of Christ

One symbolic representation of Lucifer-Satan could be the crowned animal, the combination of the dynamo of the unrefined lower self with the mind awoken to its true potential, without the crucial mediating and transforming influence of the Heart. After all, Lucifer/Satan has been depicted as cunning, seductive, powerful, brilliant, and intriguing, but there is one quality that Lucifer-Satan rarely embodies in any depiction of him with which I’m familiar, and that is selfless Love. Loving kindness, compassion, humility, and surrender to the greater Self of which the finite self is merely an extension, is the one critical quality which Lucifer-Satan seems to lack, and which is ultimately what binds him and all who embody him to being King of This World, as he is sometimes referred to in the Bible. At the same time, it is the quality most essential to Christ. Does that make Christ the true Lucifer, the true Light Bearer?

Perhaps this is also the ultimate temptation with which we are presented, at our highest stages of spiritual development. Because when one does truly become a Light Bearer, and become possessed of corresponding expanded awareness and capabilities, the temptation to use it for selfish ends has to be one of the single greatest obstacles imaginable. We can see this manifesting in many forms, such as using the light of the intellect to build technological methods to control and manipulate nature and other people, the exertion of the light of magical will to satisfy one’s own self-centered desires, spiritually exalting one’s own ego in spiritual materialism, or in gaining material wealth and power over others.

In the end, all are the attempts of the finite self or ego to become God-like, or rather, to become like a false notion of God, as a King or Ruler on a throne, a finite entity with infinite capabilities. It’s fundamentally a refusal to realize and accept one’s place as an illusory appendage of the Infinite One, meant to act in harmony with all of Creation, and to utilize one’s gifts as a self-less Light Bearer in service to humanity. At whatever level it occurs in our development, we always have the temptation to place the will of the self over the will and well-being of others, this being perhaps the fundamental essence of evil, which ultimately culminates in the utilization of others as extensions of the self to fulfill one’s own desires.

Would You Pass? 

Here’s an interesting question: If you were to be granted all the Power of This World today, would you pass The Test? Would you be able to resist the temptation to use your control over the illusory world to endlessly fulfill your own desires? Would you choose to surrender to the larger plan, which even with all your knowledge you can never fully comprehend, and to use your abilities only to heal and enlighten others, never to control them or inflict harm, or even your own brand of justice? Would you, in spite of all your power, forgive the ignorant even as they nailed your hands to the cross, rendering your Heart wide open and undefended?

The great Light Bearers of history have given us examples for how to walk the tightrope forward, to resist the temptations of power, and become the selfless servants that humanity needs. Nobody said it would be easy; in fact, its probably the most difficult thing that anyone can do. Perhaps this is why the ability to die and be reborn is such a critical component of freemasonry, as well as mythology in general. We must be able to die to the false self, and all of its desires and fears, if we ever wish to be worthy Bearers of the Light.

The Archetypal Lucifer: Bringer of Light, Adversary, Enigma? [Part I]

Freemasonry reveres the Light, which illuminates and chases away the darkness of ignorance. As a “bringer of light,” Lucifer can be a touchy subject, particularly in relation to Freemasonry, because Masons have been erroneously accused of devil worship by various groups including conspiracy theorists. Brothers come from a variety of backgrounds, in many cases religious, and there is no official Masonic position on the existence or non-existence of Lucifer, angels, or any other theological particularity. The only commonly-held theological concept in Freemasonry is a belief in a higher power – God.

Freemasonry does have some historical crossover with individuals and groups who had various beliefs and attitudes about the idea of Lucifer. Many, perhaps most, have been religious, specifically Christian, and therefore have likely held some version of the view represented in the Bible. Others, like Manly P. Hall, seem to have viewed Lucifer more symbolically, or perhaps in a gnostic way. What can we gain from contemplating the concept of Lucifer, and its relationship to our world views? 

Whence Come Ye, Lucifer?

It would serve us to briefly examine the origins of the concept of Lucifer. While many or most ancient religions had some type of “devil” or antagonistic embodiment of evil, Lucifer is most commonly referenced from the Abrahamic lineage, mostly via the Christian tradition. The name “Lucifer” is derived from the Latin “Lucem Ferre” meaning “Light Bearer.”

It is also a translation from the original Hebrew הילל [“Heylel”] in a frequently misinterpreted passage from the Torah or Old Testament of the Bible. הילל is more accurately translated as “the morning star,” or, as an adjective, “light-bringing.”

In the King James Version (KJV) of Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer appears for the first and only time in the Bible. Here, the prophet Isaiah condemns the conqueror of Israel, Nebuchadnezzar II, comparing him to the “Morning Star” or  “Venus,” which at the time was regarded by the Babylonians as having some significance in the Babylonian pantheon. The passage from Isaiah reads:

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 KJV]

When viewed in context, it seems pretty straightforward that Isaiah was using a metaphor to rebuke a fallen enemy of Israel. Throughout history, however, the verse has been taken out of context, and connected to other references in the Bible to the idea of Satan, which is a word in Hebrew that derives from “adversary.”

The Adversary

Who is Satan? In Hebrew, Satan is שָׂטָן , which is clearly different from Lucifer [ הילל ]. In the Hebrew Bible, Satan is first mentioned in the Torah, as a reference to a supernatural being who opposes.

This passage is found in the Book of Numbers and is depicted in this painting, Balaam and the Angel (1836) by Gustav Jäger, describes Satan as an Angel of God who confronts a man named Balaam, while riding on his donkey: “Balaam‘s departure aroused the wrath of Elohim, and the Angel of Yahweh stood in the road as a satan against him.”  [Numbers 22:2] 

Furthermore, in the Hebrew book, the Tanakh. Satan is referenced as a heavenly prosecutor and a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh. Satan is here described as an agent of God who prosecutes the nation of Judah in heavenly court; he also tests the loyalty of Yahweh’s followers by forcing them to suffer. 

Thus, Lucifer and Satan have become confused and connected in the minds of most people, due in part to a misunderstanding of the passage from Isaiah, and also connecting this passage to the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2, although it is debatable whether these “nephilim” were truly fallen angels. Another contributor to this idea’s popularity is to John Milton’s poem Paradise Lost, which described the mythical event of Lucifer’s angelic rebellion. Later, the idea of the rebellion and fall of a portion of the angels as a much older concept in the Hebrew traditions was given some further support by the discovery of the Book of Enoch, in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. 

The religious concept of the now conflated Lucifer/Satan in wider culture has undergone changes since the enlightenment period, with many people rejecting it outright, alongside God and all other things supernatural. Others have embraced the idea of Lucifer as a figure of knowledge and rebellion. In popular culture such as film and music, Lucifer has been portrayed variously as anything ranging from the typical adversary and embodiment of evil to a misunderstood, somewhat alluring demi-God figure.

Investigating the Lucifer Archetype

What is far more interesting than dwelling on whether or not the literal, supernatural figures of Lucifer or Satan exist, to me at least, is examining the archetype which Lucifer represents. After all, in the case that he does exist, he would merely be an embodiment of the archetype, and in the case that he does not exist, there are still humans and perhaps aspects of ourselves which do embody the archetype. Either way, the archetype or idea of Lucifer is more significant than any particular embodiment of it, and is worth reflecting upon.

What can we say about Lucifer, as an archetype? As with understanding any archetype, we must derive its traits from its various embodiments or manifestations, which are the only ways in which we can know it.

One of the more benevolent versions is the Greek Titan, Prometheus, who stole fire from the Gods to give it to man. Prometheus was punished in the end by being tied to a stone and having his liver perpetually eaten by a bird. The myth of Icarus also comes to mind, who flew too close to the sun, only to fall into the sea. The Sumerian god Enki represents another similar figure, in his rebellion against the authority of his brother Enlil and the other gods. Enki helped to lift mankind up to a higher status, which resonates with the serpent in the Garden of Eden embodiment, as well. Furthermore, being condemned by an authority figure to be bound in darkness could also be said to be a key element.

As all archetypes represent some aspect of ourselves, what does Lucifer represent? It seems obvious that it is some type of shadow figure, as he represents something that is rejected by the highest authority, literally cast into the darkness; if we were to see such a thing in a dream, then the interpretation would be rather straightforward, something bright and brilliant, yet because of pride is rejected from consciousness, and hidden from the waking or collective self. As such, he represents an aspect of the self that is not endorsed by certain authorities.

What other qualities may be clues to Lucifer’s archetype? He is also typically depicted as highly intelligent, and even the source of knowledge, having convinced Eve to partake of the Tree of Knowledge, which falls more into alignment with his “light-bearer” aspect, as the etymology of the name indicates. Related to knowledge, he is also characterized by doubt, and even deception. 

Finally, Lucifer can be related to the moral stance of relativism or nihilism, such as the idea that all that truly matters is freedom to “Do as thou wilt.” In other words, the world through the eyes of the Lucifer archetype, at least as its depicted in modern culture, is inherently meaningless and morally neutral. Therefore, the best qualities to have are intelligence and power, which grants the ability to influence the external world for various reasons. Any authority outside of the finite self, which might seek to mitigate the fulfillment of desires, is to be doubted or rebelled against.

Continue to Part 2

---

 

[Note: This article, and other articles published on this blog, represent the reflections of individual writers and do not represent the official views of Universal Co-Masonry.]

Eastern Sages, Western Secrets: What Has Vedanta to Do with Freemasonry?

Like unto that of a man blindfolded and carried away by robbers from his own country is a man’s condition. The folds of cloth over his eyes being removed by a friend, he recovers the use of his eyes and slowly finds his way home, step by step, inquiring at each stage. So also, the good teacher instructs the seeker of Truth and helps him to unloose his bonds of desire. ~ From the Chandogya Upanishad 6:14:1/3

As a young seeker of Truth, I found the wisdom of the East long before I found the hidden wisdom of the West. After I had turned away from the exoteric religion of my upbringing, and briefly embraced the alternative orthodoxy of nihilistic materialist scientism, I began to seek truths beyond the tiresome antagonism of the “religion vs. science” debate, and it was not long before I discovered the Bhagavad Gita, Taoism, Buddhist teachings, and Western interpreters like Alan Watts and Ram Dass. Of all the Eastern traditions, Vedantic philosophy (rooted in the Vedas, Upanishads, and related texts) has influenced my worldview more than any other system of thought.

Now, as a newcomer to the Western wisdom tradition of Freemasonry, and to some extent also Theosophy, Alchemy, and Hermeticism, I am struck by the similarity in essence, but difference in expression between East and West. Although I still have much to learn, I sense that the one great Truth, described by Aldous Huxley as the Perennial Philosophy, is fundamentally the same in the Western traditions as in the East, but is clothed in secrecy and symbolism, and in some ways emphasizes certain values over others. The contrast between East and West is particularly interesting to me, as they are two halves of humanity’s collective mind, just as they represent two poles on our globe.

Torch Bearers from the East

To begin with, we can be fairly certain that the connection between East and West goes back at least as far as all of Western history, as we know it. The history of great Western philosophers is also in part a history of those who journeyed to the East, learned, and came back with new insights which had to be clothed and couched in the prevailing worldview of whatever Western culture they were returning to, in order to be understood and accepted; even then, they were often rejected, sometimes violently. Bearers of the torch carrying light from the East are notoriously persecuted upon their return to the West, and often meet a gruesome end.

Some think that none other than Jesus of Nazareth is one such example, although this is still a highly controversial theory, with inconclusive evidence that he visited the East during his “missing years.” Another is Pythagoras, who is thought to have traveled extensively in his youth, at least as far East as Persia, and who also was killed by the ignorant. One that is more recent, and therefore also more certain, is that of H. P. Blavatsky, one of the founders of Theosophy and originators of Victorian spiritualism, which also preceded and influenced much of what people consider to be “new age” or “new thought” ideas, today.

In general, I think that we underestimate the degree to which people traveled, and teachings were shared or spread via the Silk Road and other trade routes between East and West, throughout our history. It doesn’t help that our mainstream historians are hesitant to acknowledge Eastern influence on Western thought. So, with all this cross-pollination, why are the West and East not identical?

Wisdom in Contrast

The most striking difference to me between East and West, in terms of the mysteries, is that in the East they simply aren’t mysteries. There isn’t much secrecy in Vedantic, Buddhist, or Taoist traditions, teachers are prone to publicly say things like, “So long as God seems to be outside and far away, there is ignorance. But when God is realised within, that is true knowledge [Sri Ramakrishna].” The volumes of Vedantic and other Eastern teachings are filled with things like this, which in the West might be merely scoffed at today, but in the past, could have led to a burning at the stake or crucifixion, for speaking so blasphemously.

Here, we arrive at what seems to me to be the chief reason for the secrecy of the Western traditions, which is the millennium of history in which the desert religions of Abraham turned from their mystic origins to the darkness of fanaticism and ignorance, and dogma spread like a plague, reigning over the West with the fiery whip of religious persecution for roughly one thousand years. While our history lessons often breeze over this period as the “Dark Ages,” with some discussion of feudalism and monarchy, the harsh reality is that Western culture underwent an intellectual and religious cleansing, where all ideas that ran contrary to the dogmas of the church (or the mosque) were punished by torture, imprisonment, and gruesome death.

No wonder, then, that those who held the wisdom of the ancient traditions of the West were forced to seek shelter in organizations like operative freemasonry, which provided secrecy, as well as a highly effective organizational structure, and fertile ground for the symbolic coding of wisdom in the tools and principles of masonry. Meanwhile, our Eastern neighbors, safeguarded by distance, geographical features like the himalayas, and their own kingdoms and power structures, held the wisdom passed on from ancient times, and continued teaching it in a relatively open manner. This is an oversimplification, but is generally more accurate than not, I would say.

Aside from being hidden vs. open, what else separates West from East? Perhaps there is a more essential difference, due to differences in temperament and culture of the two peoples, shaped in part by their climates. I could make an argument that the harsh climates of Europe, mostly in the North, bred a spirituality more focused on action, intention, and the overcoming of obstacles, while mostly tropical Eastern environments, particularly in India, bred a spirituality with a more passive focus on meditation and surrender. This theory may have some merit, but ultimately we’ll never know for sure. It does seem to me that the West is more focused on building and actively working to perfect the human, while the East is more about dissolving, letting go, and becoming free from attachment.

At the risk being accused of over-simplifying neuroscience, the general dichotomy of the left and right sides of the brain could also be said to correspond to the same principle. In many ways, West and East are akin to the left and right. The West/Left is all about clearly defined logic, boundaries, and places a greater emphasis on intellect; the East/Right is more about direct perception, dissolving boundaries, and places greater emphasis on intuitive realizations. With all these differences, is there common ground? What is the corpus callosum of East and West?

The Bridge and the Stairway

I would say absolutely, and as the beginning of this post alludes to, there are striking similarities, at times, between the teachings of the Lodge or Western esotericism in general, and that of the Swamis. Both speak of the human condition as a state of darkness and ignorance striving for light; both design their sacred structures to resemble the human body; both tend towards idealism, or the belief that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental; both ultimately teach that God dwells within.

The commonalities are surely greater than the differences, and the essence, I believe, is one. In many ways, co-masonry in particular may be an excellent bridge between the two systems, with its close ties to theosophy, a much more Eastern tradition than many of the other Western systems, and its focus on adopting the feminine into the masculine lodge. Whatever the bridge we use, it seems clear to me that we must blend East and West, right and left, action and contemplation, intellect and intuition, if we are ever to rise above, and climb the stairway to a greater truth, some transcendent gnosis.

Ultimately, I believe that we are all approximating this same truth, like a middle point of a circle which both East and West circumambulate in their own ways. The classical human mystical experience, which all these traditions are ultimately based on, seems to be more-or-less universal across cultures, and to differ only in it’s interpretation post-experience, and the cultural context which either allows it to flourish, or forces it to hide and conceal itself. Either way, the truth will out, and the light will not be concealed for long, for it is what every human on this planet thirsts for, in the depths of their soul.