See likes

See likes given/taken

Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? My apologies if it's bad etiquette to be a thread-necromancer with my very first post, but I just really thought this quote from Crowley's "New Comment" to Liber AL is very pertinent to this topic:

"Why are we told that the Khabs is in the Khu, not the Khu in the Khabs? Did we then suppose the converse? I think that we are warned against the idea of a Pleroma, a flame of which we are Sparks, and to which we return when we 'attain'. That would indeed be to make the whole curse of separate existence ridiculous, a senseless and inexcusable folly. It would throw us back on the dilemma of Manichaeism. The idea of incarnations “perfecting” a thing originally perfect by definition is imbecile. The only sane solution is as given previously, to suppose that the Perfect enjoys experience of (apparent) Imperfection."

- Crowley, New Comment to AL I:8

Seems pretty out there that Crowley openly said such a thing, but he did. Whether this means he always held such a view, and was purposely being weird with all of his repeated statements to the contrary, or this was a mere fleeting burst of sanity on his part, I don't know.

But also, perhaps in connection to such a stance, there is this, from his final work, "Magick without Tears:"

“The Holy Guardian Angel is not the 'Higher Self' but an Objective Individual. . . . He is not, let me say with emphasis, a mere abstraction from yourself; and that is why I have insisted rather heavily that the term ‘Higher Self’ implies ‘a damnable heresy and a dangerous delusion.’ . . . He is not to be found by any exploration of oneself. It is true that the process of analysis leads finally to the realization of oneself as no more than a point of view indistinguishable in itself from any other point of view; but the Holy Guardian Angel is in precisely the same position. However close may be the identities in millions of ways, no complete identification is ever obtainable. But do remember this, above all else; they are objective, not subjective, or I should not waste good Magick on them.”

^^ That one right there is a top contender for Crowley quote that 99.9% of Thelemites bend over backward to pretend he never said (besides, of course, all of his repeated assertions that Satan/Set was in his eyes 100% identical with the "Angel" Aiwaz who dictated Liber AL.)

The funniest part to me is how Crowley loved to claim that "Crossing the Abyss" does indeed entail destroying the Individual completely and forever . . . yet we all know that after he crossed said Abyss, he was still very much walking around and talking with the same heroin habit, same memories, same likes and dislikes as before. Something ain't right here. As Dr. Aquino puts it:

“The dilemma, of course, lies in the problem of ‘destroying’ the ego and then continuing to exist on Earth thinking, talking, writing, and acting as an obviously still-egocentric being who is just as obviously not One with the Objective Universe. The classic example of this is once again Aleister Crowley, who defined the grade of Magister Templi (8 )=[3] to identify an initiate who had successfully achieved this Objective Universe dissolution of consciousness, then went on to define the higher grade of Magus (9)=[2] as characterizing a magician of sufficient will and power to force a change in that same Objective Universe. This is a clearly impossible achievement if one is already indistinguishable from that Objective Universe.
. . . .
“Those who claim attainment to Magus display either (a) a fall-back to a state of psychecentrism, hence a lower Right Hand Path grade, or (b) their de facto adherence to the Left Hand Path. Since the object of the Left Hand Path is to strengthen and exalt the psychecentric consciousness as something distinct from the Objective Universe, the characteristic action of a Magus V° is indeed a mark of unique initiatory success.
. . . .
“Many self-proclaimed gurus of the Right Hand Path are not inclined to adopt simple, pastoral, self-effacing, redwood-tree lifestyles. Rather they preen themselves by assuming regalia, offices, and wealth dazzling to devotees, while insisting that such luxuries are their rightful due precisely because they have set such a good example in no longer caring for them. If confronted with the glaring hypocrisy of such positions, they retreat behind a smokescreen of religious mystery, mystical ambiguity, and ‘initiatory’ secrecy."

- Michael Aquino, “Black Magic”

And, finally, to round it all off, here's a couple of really heavy tiny bits from Crowley himself that put things in a "darker" light than usual:

"I may be a Black Magician, but I'm a bloody great one. The world may have to pass through a period of error through me, but even the error will tend to the truth." - Crowley's diaries, 1923

"And I assume unto myself and take into my service the elemental spirit of this frog, to be about me as a lying spirit, to go forth upon the earth as a guardian to me in my Work for Man; that men may speak of my piety and of my gentleness and of all virtues and bring to me love and service and all material things soever where I may stand in need. And this shall be its reward, to stand beside me and hear the truth that I utter, the falsehood whereof shall deceive men." - Crowley, "Cross of a Frog" (The ritual he performed while assuming the degree of Magus. Take into consideration Aquino's above comments concerning the same degree, and what he thinks it entails when Crowley took it.)

December 07, 2017, 02:59:09 pm
Re: Does anyone know how Dr. Michael Aquino invoked Satan/Set? From the good Dr.'s "Temple of Set":

I chose the night of June 21-22, X/197510 as an appropriate occasion for the working. The time/events following my June 10th letter to Anton and Diane had suggested to me that an ordinary solution was increasingly improbable, and that evening - as the Summer Solstice and anniversary of my own ordination to the Priesthood five years previously - seemed “traditionally” respectful. I cannot recall the date having any other significance to me at the time than this.

At midnight I was alone in my home at 302 East Calle Laureles, Santa Barbara - save only for my beloved Irish Setter, Brandy. As was my habit with GBM workings, I put a phonograph record on the turntable and set it to endlessly repeat. I chose a selection which I had never used before [and, out of personal regard for the result, have never used since]: Ralph Vaughan Williams’ Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis.

My altar was located in the living room of the house. I opened the working in the traditional Satanic Mass, then spoke aloud the First Part of the Word of Set.

I felt an impulse to enter my study - “the Sanctum” as I nicknamed it - and with Brandy curled up at my feet, sat down at my desk and took up pen and paper. Then, over the next four hours, I wrote down the words of The Book of Coming Forth by Night.

The experience was neither one of “dictation” [as in Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law working] or of “automatic writing” after the spiritualist fashion. The thoughts, words, phrases seemed to me indistinct from my own, yet impressed me as both unique and necessary, as though no other sequence would do. Frequently I paused for a time, waiting for what might occur next. Three times I got up from the desk entirely - once to find a small book by Wallis Budge, Egyptian Language, and leaf through it until I found the sentence that had gnawed at me, copying its hieroglyphs into my writing; once to trace an exact copy of a scrawled passage from the Book of the Law into the narrative; and finally, at its apparent end, to place a small piece of my own artwork (which I had done sometime previously, merely on a meditative whim) as a “seal”. By about 4 AM the document was completed, and I was mentally and emotionally exhausted. I did not formally close the working [though I did stop the endlessly-cycling phonograph], and simply fell asleep until the late morning of the 22nd, when I first read through the complete text and tried to collect my thoughts concerning it.

To put it in simpler terms:
1) He opened the ritual in the standard LaVey/CoS format by doing the Invocation to Satan and drinking from the chalice (i.e., "the traditional Satanic Mass"), possibly with calling the Four Crown Princes.

2) He recited the First Enochian Key (or rather, his at-the-time fresh and new revision of it as the First Part of "The Word of Set")

3) He spent the next four hours writing the Book of Coming Forth by Night.

4) Took a nap.

December 08, 2017, 02:35:55 pm
Re: Michael Aquino and AMORC Aquino recently published a full book explaining the entire adventure in-depth. It's a pretty entertaining volume. It's available here:

Not only does it detail the entire saga of his involvement, but the book is also his attempt at telling AMORC that their whole shtick is more or less broken from the ground up, and him supplying them with a new version of their own stuff that he thinks will actually benefit someone. Whether or not AMORC will actually suddenly reformulate their entire system in light of Aquino's vision of what they could and should be, only time will tell. But I wouldn't bet on it. As you'll see in the book, he was terminated from AMORC simply for making a long post to their forum detailing the eight emanations of the Mind-Star, and telling 'em that the AMORC views on reincarnation and the eventual fate of the soul is a bunch of gibberish. Of course, Aquino tries to stress that he's not being mean to AMORC, or trying to bust their balls . . . but he totally busts their balls left and right all the same. It's some pretty wonderful reading.

December 08, 2017, 02:51:57 pm
Old Man Aquino: No Chill Old Man Aquino: No Chill
Excerpts from Aquino’s “600 Club” Posts

For the past while, I've been lurking 600 Club for the express purpose of watching Aquino go off on people. Besides the entertainment value of it, it's fascinating seeing how candid and blunt Aquino has been getting about his personal views on topics pertinent to Satanism and Setianism. I don't know if it's just because he's older and closer to the grave or what, but he's apparently started caring way less about beating around the bush about certain topics than he previously did in former years.

As I've been reading his posts, I've also been compiling what I feel are the best gems into a collection. Originally I had been doing such for my own personal amusement/education, but, I started to think that maybe others who aren't fond of digging through the mess that is the 600 Club would also really appreciate seeing Dr. Aquino's insights that he's been sharing there. So, I figured it would probably not be too out of line to share some of the very best of these excerpts here. I hope ya'll enjoy.

(I wasn't ENTIRELY sure if such a post would be unwelcome, seeing as how it's a collection of posts from another forum outside of here, but, on the other hand, I noticed there is much interest in Aquino's views on these boards, and I thought it would be a shame for such clear expositions of Aquino's thoughts to go unheard outside of 600 Club. If this post is out of line in any way, don't hesitate to delete it and let me know I was in the wrong!)

Punchline: Atheism is wrong. There is comprehensive intelligence behind the existence and operation of the OU.

(1) Physical science explains only the observed regularity of natural events (e.g. “natural law”), to the extent these are observed and recorded (“scientific method”). But science does not, and cannot explain the why of natural law: why it exists as it is, and not otherwise nor absent (chaos). What is obvious is that the entire body of natural law is omnipresent and omnipotent universally; it is enforced as absolutely on the Moon or Saturn as it is in Berkeley. This creative and enforcing force requires a creator; it is nonsensical to attribute it to “accident”. That creative agency is “the gods/God”. This is inescapable proof of their/its existence and power.

Dimestore atheists usually try to argue against gods/God because they demand “miracles” (violations of natural law) as proof. They’ve got it backward: If natural law were breakable, that is what would disprove actual divinity - or at least show that the “natural law” in question was not completely known, thus accounting for its apparent “violation”.

(2) Atheism prefers evolution to creationism. That’s fine if you go no further than the simplicities of the J/C Bible. However it’s idiotic to posit that the complexity of natural existence and law is completely random and accidental. The construction and operation of your pet cat, from brain to tail, is a stunningly complex whole which could not possibly have resulted from millennia of random recombination.

(3) While you’re having fun with “evolution”, ask yourself why there should not be innumerable variations in construction and intelligence, not just a few very sharp divisions. In a completely accidental evolutionary environment, there would be many varieties between humans and “low intelligent” apes.

Summarily the OU is ordered by the "natural Neteru" [or "God" for simple-minded monotheists]. This is a "deistic" reality [look up "Deism"]. It can be apprehended and appreciated, but there is no point in asking it for "exceptions" (special attention, favors, punishments, etc.). All of that stuff in the slave-religions is just White Magical selfdeception.

The phenomenon of what we originally perceived as "Satanism" and later undersrtood fully in the Temple of Set is that human consciousness is distinct from the above, giving it both perspective and discretion.

That's the whole enchilada [in one 600C post].


600 Club User:
[Satanism] is all based on the volumes of work by Frederick Nietzsche.

Aquino Response:
No. Nietzsche denounced Judæo-Christianity, but as an Existentialist, not as a Satanist.

It is fashionable among avowed Existentialists to not define “Existentialism” on the grounds that it is inherently descriptive, not prescriptive of human behavior, and that, not being systematic, it varies completely from individual to individual. Hence it can be observed, and the term assigned, only descriptively after-the-fact; and no conclusions governing others can be drawn from it.

Thus Existentialism is not so much a philosophy as an anti-philosophy: a rejection of academic philosophy as being too abstract and non-experience-based as to be real and relevant to humanity.

The Existentialist therefore does not begin with an intellectual definition of humanity generally or himself individually. Rather he interacts with situations and circumstances in which he finds himself, and gradually builds up a self-image based upon his impressions and actions. This is the meaning of the Existentialist slogan that “existence precedes essence”. 

Taoism begins with perception and acceptance of individual consciousness, followed by deliberate rejection and abandonment of it in order to reduce the individual to a completely-compliant aspect of natural law: a being governed by instinct rather than intellect. 

The Existentialist has the same de facto goal, but goes the Taoist one better by denying that he has an intellect to be destroyed in the first place. For him the intellect is a mere illusion, an insane conceit. He insists that the metaphysical genius, the “philosophical individual”, never really existed at all, and that “authenticity” results from realizing this and resigning oneself to a mere stimulus/response-reactive machine.

Such passionate self-denial and -destruction is not only counter-intuitive, but emotionally torturous. The stress reduced Existentialists like Nietzsche to incoherence, and others like Sartre to compulsive horror (“nausea”) at the “obscenity” of existence generally.


Aquino on atheist/symbolic Satanists in general:
The more I read here from persons whose only experience with the "Church of Satan" is post‐1975, the sorrier I feel for them. Up to 1975 the Church was a very open, friendly, happy, and ‐ how can I put it? ‐ kick‐ass organization. Sure, there was an occasional jerk, but such was utterly incidental to the overall pleasure and exuberance of the Satanist experience. Anton bounced around the country visiting Grottos, whose members heralded him at ceremonies, took him to dinner, and showed him the town; there was a lively succession of interGrotto activities, regional conclaves, newsletters everywhere. In those pre‐Internet times the personal, telephone, and postal activity was a constant cascade.

And of course it was an organization of "joiners"! Most people who encountered the Church didn't know squat about Satanism, witchcraft, Black Magic, and all the other topics of interest. They joined the Church precisely to learn about these things, test‐drive them individually and cooperatively, influence & prank society, and have some pizza & root beer betweentimes. The initiatory degrees were all methodically refined and formalized over the years; if a Warlock II° or a Priestess III° from anywhere walked through the door, everyone knew to what extent they had their Satanic shit together.

Did I forget to mention that we all believed in the literal existence of Satan and the Dæmons/Powers of Darkness? Hey, that's why it was called THE‐CHURCH‐OF‐SATAN. Was there a lot of metaphorical use of Satan's name too? Sure, as with any divinity and its cultural influences throughout history. Today I am still stunned by the number of atheists, both post‐75‐Anton‐affiliates and others, who have this bizarre, even frantic compulsion to style themselves "Satanists". Yes, it's a cooler name than "Atheist" or "materialist". Yes, it just makes you sound pretentious, silly, and glamour‐wistful if you really, finally, aren't one.

I sought to preserve something of the great Magical Mystery Tour of the real Church of Satan in my Church of Satan ebook, which if you haven't yet read I invite you to download. I wanted ‐ still want ‐ to take you back there, share the adventure, meet Satan face‐to‐face as we all did.

As for the crisis of 1975, it was sudden, shocking, and incomprehensible. Thereafter we tried to pay as little attention to what was happening under the Church's name as possible, frankly because everything we did hear was degrading, embarrassing, and depressing. I can't tell you how many times I had to apologize to people that it wasn't anything like that 1966‐75; that's one of the reasons I finally took the time to write the ebook.

What I see today under the area of "Satanism" is, in a word, chaos. Anton, Gilmore, Densley, et al. fucked the concept up so thoroughly in the last 34 years that it's a wonder anyone bothers with it anymore. People occasionally ask me to recommend a good purely‐Satanist religious institution; I can't think of one anywhere on the planet to which I would recommend a discerning adult. Can any of you?

Just look at this Forum, which is as sincere and serious a venue for Satanism as I've currently encountered. The undercurrent and outbursts of defensiveness, bitterness, and frustration here are palpable. These things don't just happen spontaneously; they are the result of idealism shattered, curiosity disillusioned, the creative impulse thwarted. At its core, Satanism is an atomic explosion in your soul; like Dr. Frankenstein you "want to see it at its full power". You absolutely don't have time for villagers with torches.

As some of you know, the Temple of Set includes a number of specialized Orders , for Setians with concentrated interests and experience. Some years ago we wondered about an Order of Satan, for Satanism ‐ the idea being to recapture the original vision that we had left behind us in 1975. We concluded that we couldn't do it ‐ not because we couldn't do a great pageant of it, but because we had all gone so far beyond that idiom that it would be pointless beyond Halloween‐party theatrics. Once having met Obi‐wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker cannot just go back to his farm again.

So what can I say to today's aspiring Satanists: the real ones who have the courage, honor, and dignity to, as per G.B. Shaw, "promise him your soul, to stand up for him in this world and stand by him in the next"?

I would first exhort you that, if sincere, this is the highest and most noble affirmation you will ever experience. All that it brings to you, all the doors it opens, all of its dangers and delights will follow from this sacred moment. And no, you will never be able to go back to the Tatooine farm again either.

I would not bother advising you to disregard the atheists trying to clothe themselves in the magic robes of Satanists. They do not fool the Prince of Darkness, nor you, nor even themselves. They are but dust in the wind.

600 Club User:
I can't account for what Hippy-Dippy shit you people were into in the 60's and 70's. I can only speak to the reason I personally adopted 'Satanism' as a descriptor for what I was already doing.

Aquino Response:
Satanism as a religion posits a metaphysical as well as a physical reality. That was intentionally the premise of the original Church of Satan.

What I'm seeing today is mostly a denial of metaphysics, in favor of a mere description of one's hedonistic lifestyle, in which "Satan" is merely a hood ornament.

As detailed above, that would place you more as an Existentialist than a Satanist. This is meant descruptively, not insultingly. 

The objection that I've most often encountered here is that "everyone can design and define 'Satanism' to suit himself". Once a term is reduced to personal whim, if ceases to have meaning in discussion.

600 Club User:
What is wrong with acknowledging that you use Satan as a being/archtype during rituals, but don't believe outside the chamber that he's going to ring your doorbell? Why does it have to be all or nothing? 

Aquino Response:
If you're playing a game, there's nothing at all wrong with it.

600 Club User Response:
I do not play at anything and do not take this shit lightly. I use Satan in my rites and etc. I don't think he is going to be ringing my doorbell just like I don't believe some sex demon is going to ravage me in bed tonight. I understand what I choose to be my own reality. I can tell the difference between what happens in and outside the ritual chamber and how I cause things in my life to occur.

Aquino Response:
First of all, no personal insult intended: My comment was simply meant matter‐of‐fact ‐ that either you perceive and respect Satan as a metaphysical reality or you don't. If you do, he does not exist to be switched on and off at your preference or convenience (which is what Christians routinely do with God/Jesus), but is a permanent, living presence in your consciousness. If on the other hand you don't, then he is not that, and there is nothing more that I need say. Your decisions are of course your own to make.

600 Club User:
To somehow insinuate that the elevated degrees were somehow less in stature or less meaningful than when you were elevated is ludicrous. Nothing was just given out and those of us who earned... I stress EARNED... our stripes (Certificates of Degree) were no less proud of them and the work we put in to get them than you must have been. If that is indeed your assumption, I take it as a personal insult.

Aquino Response:
In all the years since 1975 I have never once encountered, read of, or heard of a "priest", "magistra", "magister", and now "magus" of the "Church of Satan" who wasn't an utter embarrassment to the concept. These designations all had formal, carefully‐developed significance adapted by the Church from their historic origins in the S.R.I.A., the G.D., and the A.A. The degree‐system of the Church necessarily had a Left‐Hand, not a Right‐Hand Path orientation, of course, and the Priesthood of Mendes was a unique addition, growing from the Church's original 1968‐69 concept of having both priests and ministers. If you want to champion Densley as a "magistra" and Gilmore as a "magus", far be it from me to restrain you.

600 Club User:
Can't we all just worship Satan-- or worship Satan but claim we're just pretending to-- and leave it at that? If you hold the Satanic Bible as representative of Satanism, isn't it enough that these 'satanatheists' assent to the majority of the book's philosophy and thus understandably identify as Satanists, and stop harping on them just because they weren't alive to be privy to some esoteric secret that-- according to you-- became irrelevant almost 40 years ago?

Aquino Response:
I have continued to agree that anyone can call himself whatever he wishes, for whatever reason or no reason at all. My [equally continuing] caution is that S/Sist/Sism have generally-assumed & accepted meanings outside the 600C clubhouse, and that it's a good idea to consider whether, as Dad said, TFYG is worth TFYT, that's all.

Beyond that there is the simple question of integrity. We've seen this in the absurdity of the post-75 "Church of Satan", which is neither a church [as a worshipping institution] nor does it believe in Satan [as a worshipped metaphysical entity]. Both terms are bullshit, for no reason other than spooky glamor. Indeed they say so: "Here I am on YouTube standing in front of a B[aphomet] and calling to Satan, but of course I don't believe a word of any of it." If they see nothing lunatic about this, and you don't either, who am I to bring up things like emperors and clothes?

So if you're going to appropriate a famous term and then either use it falsely or try to massage it around into something you can neojustify, whom are you really fooling?

December 08, 2017, 07:37:06 pm
Re: Old Man Aquino: No Chill Yeah, he's kinda preoccupied at the moment with his health, or, rather, lack thereof  :(. This is some of his most recent statements on 600 Club about his current state (like, last month recent):

"I'm quite close to croaking, and have been on a book-binge to get as much of what I think is worthwhile passing along in print before I push daisies. . . . My vision is also failing: Can't read books or see videos anymore, though I can still get along with bright backlit screens . . . Thanks for the kind wishes, but I'm cool about the situation. Actually a bit annoyed that it is somewhat unpredictable. In CA you have to have a locked-in 6-month croak date before you can exit comfortably. A few years down the road and things will be more civilized."

I'd be surprised if he starts to find extra time to become active here. Although it would of course be awesome if he did. At least he's in high spirits about the situation. He knows it's only his body that's fading, not his actual Self.

December 09, 2017, 01:11:37 am
Re: What are you playing? Just started messing around with this pretty amazing new hack of Castlevania for the NES called "Castlevania: The Holy Relics." It just came out the other day, and it's pretty insane what all they've managed to do with this one. It's WAY more than a simple graphics hack. Ya can check it out here:

December 09, 2017, 01:50:18 am
Re: Can a complex form contain multiple forms? The fact that each of us is a unique individual, and yet are all derivative of the first consciousness, is proof that multiple individual consciousnesses derived from one source can all exist independently of that source. And I see no real reason at all to assume that being a flesh-and-blood incarnate human is an absolute prerequisite to being a psyche apart from the first psyche. As such, I personally have no problem at all with seeing the various gods/daemons as existing in their own right, and all having their individuality apart from Set, even if He is the source of their own psyches.

I don't necessarily think this leads to panpsychism at all, because consciousness is something that can be observed, something that gives evidence of its existence by its conscious actions. And there are many, many things that give no evidence whatsoever of being conscious at all.

But this does remind me of a similar issue I've been tossing around in my head lately: given Aquino's more recent statements in Mind-Star, and elsewhere, where he clearly and unambiguously states that the cosmos is, in his view, the purposeful design of conscious, willful neteru that predate the cosmos, then where exactly is the line still being drawn between "natural neteru" and the one "unnatural" one? What I mean is, if the capability of abstract thought and individual consciousness is what defines a psyche as "unnatural," and the neteru who designed and implemented natural law are capable of willful design and abstract thought needed to consciously design anything, then what makes those neteru any less "unnatural" in their own willful, conscious existence? Aquino makes it abundantly clear that natural, mechanistic laws cannot design themselves. They require a conscious, willful designer. So, if "Great is the might of Set, and greater still he through us," then is not Set also "great through the 'natural' neteru" as well? After all, if they are "conscious," "willful" entities with the power of discretionary design and artistic thought, then their own psyches must also derive from Set, if Set is to be the source of all individual consciousness. The creation of said neteru, the Objective Universe and its mechanical laws, can still very much be a non-conscious entity. It's just DESIGNED by conscious, willful neteru. So what makes the designers themselves "natural" just because their creation is mechanical? Men who design cars don't become "natural" neteru devoid of consciousness just because they have created a mechanical motor. 

December 10, 2017, 11:36:00 pm
Re: Old Man Aquino: No Chill Found another good one:

"I have my own six years (1969-75) of close personal friendship, dialogue, and both Lesser and Greater Black Magical workings with Anton to leave no doubt in my own mind [that Anton believed in Satan]. But I am also familiar with how psychologically, indeed desperately important it is to most other people that Satan (through the Judæo/Christian iconographic lens) not exist - as, in this instance, to force all of Anton's unequivocal statements above into some/any kind of Procrustean bed of 'symbolism'. Because if Satan does actually exist, then there is an entire metaphysical superstructure beyond the material universe, and most people are utterly unwilling and unprepared to even contemplate, much less confront that. I am frankly of the opinion that this is for the best:

'Think of it. On the surface there is hunger and fear. Men still exercise unjust laws. They fight, tear one another to pieces. A mere few feet beneath the waves their reign ceases, their evil drowns. Here on the ocean floor is the only independence. Here I am free! Imagine what would happen if they controlled machines such as this submarine boat. Far better that they think there's a monster and hunt me with harpoons.' - Captain Nemo, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

"Far better too that the mass of humanity not believe in the Powers of Darkness, or the Intelligence from which they emanate, except as a comic book metaphor like 'God'. That way too they can comfortably dismiss Anton LaVey: junkyard intellectual, con artist, poseur, carny geek, who played the role of the Devil in Rosemary's Baby and porked Marilyn Monroe."

December 11, 2017, 04:19:22 pm
Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP? I didn't mean at all to imply that Crowley didn't actually cross the Abyss, only that he was highly dishonest as to what it entailed. I believe that he very much did cross it, and I was pointing out his state of being afterwards as the clear indication that much of his writing on the topic is purposefully misleading. After all, Crowley repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, declared that those who don't take that grade are those who are "afraid of losing [their] individuality," those who refuse to "annihilate" their Ego. And all of this talk is why most "orthodox" Thelemites reduce Thelema to basically a sexier Buddhism in Egyptian-garb. While Aquino does tend to think Crowley never really "got it," I tend to suspect that Crowley did understand what he was doing, but delighted in convincing people they were following a RHP system, when it was really nothing of the sort deep down. I think his comment to AL I:8 as reproduced above was his clear admission of such.
December 13, 2017, 03:36:52 am
Re: Thoughts on death I was hesitant at first to reply to this one, because I have a tendency to come off as a blow-hard on this topic, as I find it hard to not come off as condescending to those who cherish empirical, OU science as their basis for trying to accept or understand metaphysical realities. So, keeping in mind that I'm not intentionally trying to be an asshole to anyone, here's my two-cents, for what it's worth.

The entire reason I identify as LHP is due to an unwavering and intense conviction that individual consciousness is of supreme importance. I reject not only all attempts to actively obliterate the individual psyche (such as in forms Buddhism and Taoism) as RHP, but I go a step further and consider even passive acceptance of eventual oblivion of the psyche (such as through belief and faith in materialist models of reality that consider consciousness a mere by-product of physical matter called the brain) as essentially RHP in essence as well. I don't define LHP vs RHP on mere differences in moral views of how to live in relation to others in a finite, transient physical life. Nor do I define the two Paths merely in terms of what sort of deities, and the aesthetics applied to such deities, a person chooses to work with.

To me, the LHP is about taking responsibility for one's Self not only here, but eternally. If one chooses to create their own reality and take responsibility for their own personal happiness here, but concedes that even that is merely nothing but toying around briefly with a bunch of random, cosmic accidents (and considering their own Being equally a random accident with no inherent purpose) before an inevitable oblivion, then ultimately, none of it mattered anyway. For folks like this, both "paths," Right or Left, are essentially the same when it comes to the end-goal: a big, fat, nothing. To be fair, many of this mindset do indeed eventually come to consider both paths as essentially leading to the same thing. In face of such a bleak, and self-deprecating view of reality, why not concede that both are the same? Oblivion is oblivion, no matter how one slices it.

My "magical" name, (and my screen-name here) "V.I.M." is a reference to my views on "death": V (Vita) I (in) M (Morte), or "Life in Death," with the added meaning of the word "vim," meaning "energy" or "enthusiasm." Essentially, it denotes that the nature of disincarnate existence is one of action, of enthusiasm, and not one of decay or dissolution, nor one of passive acceptance and conformity to someone else's pre-programmed afterlife "realm." One is free to create their own reality, as one is somewhat (with limitations) free to do so here, except without being confined by the Natural Laws which the material cosmos of space/time/energy is bound by.

One is also just as free to linger around the OU and try (with varying degrees of success) to influence and interact with the world of space/time if they so choose. "Dead" people do it all the time. Not a single day goes by in this world without someone, somewhere, being visited by the "dead," either in a positive or negative capacity. From the dawn of recorded human history, in all cultures, in all lands, in all times, the repeated and regular interaction of the dead with the living is a constant. Of course, if one really wants to dismiss literally countless incidents of such interaction, from people of all walks of life, as "anecdotal, therefore not real evidence," one is certainly free to do so. I can't stop anyone from doing as such. People are also totally free to reject their own experiences of the same phenomenon with whatever materialist excuses they prefer. People do that all the time as well. Full-blown materialist atheists who have seen, heard, and even been assaulted by "ghosts," and just decide to consider themselves mentally ill on the a priori grounds that what happened to them just "can't be real because . . . that's not real" abound. Sad, but, what can ya do for such folks? People believe what they want, the evidence of their own senses (and others) notwithstanding.

As for myself, I've been lucky (or unlucky?) enough to have been exposed to the reality of disincarnate sentience from an early age. I had a great uncle who hanged himself before I was born. I never knew him. But this didn't stop him from regularly scaring the bejeezuz out of me (and my cousins, and my mother, and friends of the family) as a child. I'm not going to bore anyone with an exhaustive list of his antics, as those who can't or won't believe such things simply won't believe anyway. I only bring it up to point out why I've never, even when a thorough agnostic (in terms of belief in deities) in my early teens, doubted the reality of survival of personal consciousness outside of the physical organism.

My eventual embracing of the LHP was not out of any desire to prove to myself that consciousness survives, but was instead out of the conviction that consciousness, and one's own sovereignty, were sacred, and could and should be enshrined in a way that conventional religions tried to downplay or deny. Over the years, my personal interactions with what I still prefer to call Satan, and others prefer to call Set, has affirmed and solidified my conviction that the personal, individual psyche is sacred and eternal. My embracing of Thelema, likewise, is largely due to Shaitan-Aiwaz's assertion that "existence is pure joy," that the joy of the divine is to see our joy, and that "all the sorrows are but as shadows, they pass and are done, but there is that which remains." Despite however anyone else, including Crowley, likes to interpret those lines, what they mean to me is probably obvious at this point in this post.

So, to put it bluntly in a nut-shell, what I believe "happens" after "death," is pretty simple: once your physical organism which you use to integrate with the OU expires, you continue to exist in your SU, and are free to either isolate yourself there, or interact with other SUs of other eternal psyches. Go it alone, or be social. Your choice. Don't like the contents you have to work with for your own SU? Didn't create enough good memories while here? Didn't build your own personal reality into something you can truly love and cherish for eternity? Then by all means, "drink from Lethe," go back to the drawing board, reincarnate, and try again. Want to hang around your old place and screw with the new occupants? Go ahead, who's stopping you? (Well, maybe the new occupants, depending on the strength of their own psyche, and their desire to get rid of your creepy ass :P) And beyond all this, if one is so inclined, and has progressed far enough in their own divinity, one may even be able to ascend to the company of the gods/daemons themselves and join with them in the governance of the cosmos. In the words of Sallust: "Both in this Life, and when they depart from it, the good will be happy. . . . and when separated from the irrational nature, and purified from all body, shall be conjoined with the gods, and govern the whole world, together with the deities by whom it was produced."

December 13, 2017, 03:07:14 pm