Lynn Picknett - The Secret History of Lucifer - And the Meaning of the True Da Vinci Code

If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adanay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

Thus the doctrine of Satanism is heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adanay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adanay, the God of Darkness and Evil 54

There have been no shortage of others willing to condemn Pike for the worship of Lucifer. The French commentator Jules Bois wrote in 1902:

It is surprising, the sacrilegious Gospel of Albert Pike. He divides Christ's existence into two parts: in the first, he classes his doctrine in a way rational, natural (Christ was then, for him, the envoy of the `Good God', that is to say Lucifer). In the second, he had the mystic exaltation ... such as his affirmation that he is himself the son of God and equal to the father .. . According to Albert Pike, Jesus had signed a pact with Adonai ... [where] a desire for solitary divinisation had intoxicated him, rendering him unreasonable and in human. From then, Lucifer abandoned him and, in exchange for his apostasy, had inflicted on him by the people the torture due to thieves.

I believe that, with this example, we touch the centre of Lucifer ss

However, according to Brent Morris and many other modern Masons, all this and similar commentary is slander, based on a hoax perpetrated by `Leo Taxil' (Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages). He publicly confessed his deception in 1897,56 although that part of the story is usually overlooked by those eager to brand Masons as Satanists. Brent notes that rabbis, bishops and other men of God are among those who should have been taught `this disgusting "Luciferian doctrine"' if it existed, and it `is inconceivable there would not have been mass resignations'.51

Some Catholic zealots and fundamentalists also tend to quote Madame Blavatsky in the same breath as the Taxil slander: this nineteenth-century Russian visionary and founder of the Theosophical Society has a perhaps not entirely deserved reputation for charlatanism - but her monumental writings have been most influential on many to this day, including various secret societies. For example, she wrote: `Lucifer represents ... Life ... Thought ... Progress ... Civilization ... Liberty ... Independence ... Lucifer is the Logos, the Serpent, the Saviour.'"'

In this light, it is worth examining Madame Blavatsky's writings more closely in order to understand the esoteric tradition she represented. In her Isis Unveiled: A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology she quotes the Vatican's Ecumenical Council of 1870: `Let him be ANATHEMA ... who shall say that human Sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions even when opposed to revealed doctrines'.59 She adds: `Christianity is on trial, and has been, ever since science felt strong enough to act as Public Prosecutor.'60 Although temptingly - and endlessly - quotable, just two more of her little gems will have to suffice here: she notes that the ancients were `too enlightened to believe in a personal devil 161 and `Hell and its sovereign are both inventions of Christianity, coeval with its accession to power and resort to tyranny . . .' With a contemptuous flourish, she adds: `Sad degeneration of human brains!'62

While the Masons indignantly deny Pike's alleged devotion to Lucifer - and there is no reason to doubt that Taxil did perpetrate a hoax intended to slander them - one is left wondering why they are quite so upset. As we now know there is absolutely no need to equate Lucifer with Satan, and in any case, the quotations given above reflect almost pure Gnosticism. In fact, for an organization that prides itself on mystical understanding and tolerance one is left hoping that they do secretly honour the real Lucifer, whose attributes would have made him the perfect patron for the Royal Society.

Indeed, the Masons take religious tolerance particularly seriously, as the following extract from a letter to myself from Masonic writer Robert Lomas makes very clear:

No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical, and assert the right to persecute, if we would, and claim our toleration as a merit.

The Mason's creed goes farther than that; no man, it holds, has any right, in any way, to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; and that if there were any right of persecution at all, it would in all cases be a mutual right, because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case - and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them 63

Robert Lomas points out, therefore, that `Freemasonry is not liked by organized religions because it is tolerant of any and all religious beliefs. And shows no favouritism to any. So Freemasonry does not encourage devil worship but neither does it condemn it. [My emphasis].' Of course to Christians this in itself would be tantamount to devil-worship.

Leaving aside the Taxil hoax, do Masons have any connection with Lucifer? The Bright Morning Star is, according to Lomas, `a key feature in both the First Degree Tracing Board and Third Degree Ceremony', key initiations intended to change the Mason's entire outlook in radically profound ways, as he explains in a Masonic paper:

The process of initiation is one of regeneration. It means Developing your inmost essence, first to birth and then to full growth. This involves a rejection and mystical death of all the lower principles that obstruct your growth. This is the path traced through our three Degrees.

The first stage involves refining your gross sense-nature, killing your desire for material attractions and developing indifference to the allure of the outer world.

The second involves disciplining and clarifying your mind till it becomes pure and strong enough to respond to a spiritual order of life and wisdom. That is why in our Second Degree the discovery of a sacred symbol in the centre of the building shows a first glimpse of your personal centre. This knowledge is followed by a desire to wipe from your heart all obstacles to complete union with this centre.

The third stage, the `last and greatest trial', involves the voluntary dying of your sense of ego and separation from the universal life-essence. As your limited personal ego dies you become conscious of a bright morning star within you lightening your mental horizon.

This is the great secret of Masonry: by instruction and discipline each of you can achieve conscious realization of the unity of your centre.

But why is such a theory a secret? It is because it can only be understood as a personal experience. The experience must be prepared for in secret, be realized in secret, and it remains incomprehensible and incommunicable to anyone who has not lived it.

Masonry leaves you free to follow your own religion, in the sure knowledge that every religion leads ultimately to one centre. It is a preparation for what can be realized in its fullness only by initiation 65

Many of those who attack the Masons are outraged that they dare even use the names of pagan gods, as in the following extract from the notes of `ultimate Masonic guru'66 Walter Leslie Wilmshurst (d.1939), writing about the meaning of the term `Son of the Widow':