Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Frater V.I.M.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Satanism / Re: Azazel-Pan: Devil-God of the Witches
« on: February 10, 2018, 05:53:33 am »
AH! Derp. I was thinking you meant the original article I put in the OP, cuz I re-read that request out of context (and thought it was a new comment for some reason) and forgot it was originally about the Yezidi article in the thread. Scatterbrain'd over here. Well, for those that would've liked to have my Azazel article in pdf for whatever reason, there's that. :P

Satanism / Re: Azazel-Pan: Devil-God of the Witches
« on: February 09, 2018, 12:06:52 pm »
Do you have a PDF of the article you could attach by chance?

Here ya go.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 25, 2018, 12:20:58 am »
That sounds like a fair way to approach it more or less. When it comes to the Absolute, and the transcendental part of all this, we're talking about things that are inherently timeless, so nothing "there" can really "precede" anything else in the gross sense we mean it when talking about space/time. But, since we ARE in the cosmos of space/time HERE, it would at the same time be correct in a clunky, limited way to talk of that Unity "preceding" the Individuals that come from it.

I might have already mentioned this quote from Sallust and the comment by the translator Thomas Taylor somewhere else in a thread here before (I'm prone to bringing it up alot in conversations about the Absolute or First Cause vs the Gods that arise from it), so forgive me if I'm repeating it again, but I think it's relevant to this discussion a little bit:

"That a God is immutable, without Generation, eternal, incorporeal, and has no Subsistence in Place. . . . The essences of the gods are neither generated; for eternal natures are without generation; and those beings are eternal who possess a first power, and are naturally void of passivity. Nor are their essences composed from bodies; for even the powers of bodies are incorporeal: nor are they comprehended in place; for this is the property of bodies: nor are they separated from the first cause, or from each other; in the same manner as intellections are not separated from intellect, nor sciences from the soul." - Sallust

"The reader must not suppose from this, that the gods are nothing more than so many attributes of the first cause; for if this were the case, the first god would be multitude, but the one must always be prior to the many. But the gods, though they are profoundly united with their ineffable cause, are at the same time self-perfect essences; for the first cause is prior to self-perfection. Hence as the first cause is superessential, all the gods, from their union through the summits or blossoms of their natures with this incomprehensible god, will be likewise superessential; in the same manner as trees from being rooted in the earth are all of them earthly in an eminent degree. And as in this instance the earth itself is essentially distinct from the trees which it contains, so the highest god is transcendency distinct from the multitude of gods which he ineffably comprehends." - Taylor

General LHP Discussion / Re: Process Philosophy and Process Theism
« on: January 24, 2018, 09:51:03 pm »
I myself have been intrigued by some of Whitehead's thoughts on Process Theology. Particularly the notion of "God" having two modes, neither of which cancels out the other: an eternal, timeless "part." and a part that is active and "finite" in a sense. Whitehead's concepts here resonate with me on a deep level, because my own Satanism is very much caught in the middle between the original Age of Satan ideas towards Satan as more or less "God" that is the Dark Force that rules and permeates the Cosmos on the one hand, and Aquino's departure from that view of making Satan/Set completely finite and completely apart from that "God." I've always been very much in love with this line from LaVey that seems to work as a way of balancing the two views through the avenue of Yezidi theology:

The Yezidi interpretation of God was in the purest Satanic tradition. . . . If there was any semblance of a personal manifestation of God, it was through Satan, who instructed and guided the Yezidi toward an understanding of the multifaceted principles of Creation, much like the Platonic idea that the Absolute was itself static and transcendental. This concept of ‘God’ is essentially the position taken by the more highly evolved Satanists.” - LaVey, The Satanic Rituals, 1972

Basically, Satan as the personal manifestation of a more or less impersonal Godhead instead of there being a stark contrast between the two as Aquino views it.

The way I view Satan-Aiwaz in Thelemic terms is also somewhat similar. His was the voice speaking in the entire Book of the Law, even when "Nuit," "Hadit," or "Ra-Hoor-Khuit" were being presented. This Trinity together is One, and constitute the transcendent Godhead that encompasses All. Satan-Aiwaz, the "Minister" of these, is ultimately a personal manifestation of this trinity. I see him as "the Star in the company of stars of whose fire we are created," the first Conscious manifestation of the Absolute, and each of us are reflections of Him, each of us also being Conscious manifestations of the Absolute, and thereby the "God" of each of our own Subjective Universes.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« on: January 22, 2018, 05:57:46 am »
I think getting hung up on the Solar nature of the religion clouds people by attributing moral qualities to the sun. The universe is neither good or bad, it just is. So the sun, the moon, the stars, humanity is neither good or bad. It just is.

Yup. And nothing changes the fact that the sun is a star just as much as any other star. A sun is merely a star with planets orbiting it. And even further, moonlight is nothing but sunlight bounced off a big rock. Moonlight is just sunshine-lite.

General LHP Discussion / Re: How do you treat your altar?
« on: January 19, 2018, 07:19:37 pm »
When I had the space, I kept one entire room devoted solely for ritual work, and that's where the altar was. Since having to downsize a bit ago, I now have half of a room curtained off with black curtains. That half of the room  contains the altar and accessories, and is never entered for any purposes besides rituals (or the occasional time I need to grab some item or book that was left in there from a previous ritual, or to check to make sure a cat hasn't fucked anything up if it managed to sneak into the room, etc.) I don't do external rituals near as regularly as in the past, but I still make it a point to keep the altar and its surrounding area sacred and special for when I do feel the need to utilize it.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Controversial topic: Armanen Runes.
« on: January 15, 2018, 01:30:57 pm »
I don't believe things need a long historical lineage to "work" at all, although it may lend some degree of inherent "power" to something if it does have such a lineage. A large part of what makes something magical or not is the importance your own psyche gives it. If one wanted to work with, say, Hylian script from the Zelda series or Tolkien's version of the Runes it would still "work" in some capacity, as those worlds are "real" in a mystical sense insofar as people make them "real."

Once upon a time, a LONG time ago, scripts such as Hebrew, Greek, Runic, etc were "new" things with no ancient lineage behind them. I'd imagine they still "worked" for magicians then as well. But I do think that once a thing has been viewed as magical and sacred by so many people for so long, the thing in and of itself has some sort of built-up "power" that it didn't have at first due to the accumulated thoughts and desires projected onto them from so many psyches over the ages. Perhaps also due to all that psychic energy STILL being focused on it from all those past psyches that are now disincarnate.

Science / Re: Compiled Scientific Evidence in favor of the "Paranormal"
« on: January 05, 2018, 10:37:26 pm »
Contact with the Other World: The Latest Evidence as to Communication with the Dead by James H. Hyslop, Ph.D, LL.D (1919)

^^One of a series of exhaustive books on the topic of survival of personality after death by the now generally forgotten/ignored Dr. James Hyslop. Although he's nothing resembling a major figure in the field today, I can't understand why. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more thorough, serious, and scientific proponent of survival from back in the day than this guy.

His theory on how communication between incarnate and disincarnate psyches probably really works is beautiful and compelling, too. He calls it "the pictographic method," and is expounded upon pretty damn thoroughly in a previous work, Life After Death: Problems of the Future Life and its Nature (1918) as well, which ya can read here:

Unlike the first book linked in this post (which is a sort of overview of the topic, including theory and evidence), Life After Death is pretty much all theory on HOW communication works, and not focused on cataloging of evidence on whether or not it happens at all. He's pretty blunt about the reason for that though: 

“I do not propose here to discuss the evidence for a life beyond the grave. The possibility of it was discussed because I wished to remove the usual philosophical objections to it in order to refer merely to the evidence for its being a fact. That evidence consists of two classes of facts. (1) The uniform experience of the race from the earliest times which has given rise to its religions and belief in another life. (2) The recorded results of observation and experiment by the various Societies for Psychical Research. It is the latter facts which have given credibility to human experience and tradition generally, after eliminating the influence of the imagination and superstition that had attached itself to these legends. Tylor’s Primitive Culture shows that the universal existence of the same ideas among savages widely distributed and separated from each other and without any possible connections points unmistakably to experiences which the Societies for psychical research have verified as unquestionable facts. I have published in Science and a Future Life, and in Psychic Research and the Resurrection summaries of the scientific evidence for survival after death, and Mr. Frederic W. H. Myers in his Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death has collected a mass of evidence pointing in the same direction. Hence with the accumulated evidence of survival I shall not produce any quantity of it in this volume. I shall treat the hypothesis of survival as scientifically proved. I here make no concessions whatever to the skeptic. He shall be treated as so far behind the times that he can safely be ignored."

(Haven't got around to the other books he's mentioned as focusing on evidence in that passage yet, so I haven't linked them here. But those are probably full of good stuffs too, knowing Hyslop from just the two books linked here.)

Satanism / Re: Azazel-Pan: Devil-God of the Witches
« on: January 05, 2018, 07:10:15 pm »
Yeeaah, that's the full original vid. It's not a terribly long thing. But I still thought it was worth it to make that tiny excerpt of the Azazel bit, cuz lawd knows some folks got short attention spans :P.

And that "Serpent Symbolism in the Yezidi Religious Tradition" is a really cool one too. What I found most fascinating about it, is it proves that some Yezidis do in fact practice magic and even curse people. It's commonly stated that this is only a Muslim "myth," but it isn't. Also, it has a really gnarly pic of a snake/bird/dragon hybrid idol owned by this one Yezidi family. They use it in their magic stuffs. Here's the pic of it from the article:

And here's a snippet of the Yezidi owner of the snake talking about its powers:

“We put the image of the snake into water and then allow the sick person, who asked for help, to drink that water. If the person believes in the powers of the snake, he will recover. The image of the snake has also other powers. My mother could use it to make rain and she even could channel curses through it. One day a non-Yezidi hit a Yezidi boy. The boy was crying, and the people were furious. My mother said: ‘I do not want to curse him, but we will make sure he is punished.’ A few days later the man broke his arm.”

Satanism / Re: Azazel-Pan: Devil-God of the Witches
« on: January 05, 2018, 02:27:16 pm »
In the article, I briefly touched on Orphic notions of Pan as being something far more than the mere "second order" sort of deity he's usually envisioned as in classical mythology. Although I didn't really elaborate on it any, that later mystical view of Pan is very central to my own reasonings of championing Pan as my Azazel/Satan, and for me, also ties into the Setian ideas of Set as the source of consciousness. This quote from the great Neoplatonist Thomas Taylor will probably clarify how and why I make such a connection:

“Pan, as we are informed by Damascius, first subsists at the extremity of the intelligible order, being there no other than the celebrated Protogonus or Phanes; but, according to his mundane subsistence, he is the monad or summit of all the local Gods and daemons. In the statues of him his upper parts resemble those of a man, but his lower parts those of a brute [viz. of a goat] indicating by this, that in the universe rationality has dominion over irrationality. As, therefore, according to his first subsistence, he is the primary exemplar of the universe; the reason is obvious why in [the Orphic Hymns] he is celebrated as all things.”

- Thomas Taylor, The Mystical Hymns of Orpheus, 1824

Edit: Forgot to mention this really wonderful article, "Tawus Protogonos: Parallels between the Yezidi Theology and Some Ancient Greek Cosmogonies" by Artur Rodziewicz:
(Sucks that it costs money to read though, but it's worth it.)

It draws some REALLY interesting parallels between Protogonos (First Born) in Orphic beliefs and Yezidi beliefs regarding Azazel (the proper name of the "Angel" generally known as Melek Taus.) Helps bring all that Pan/Azazel/Protogonos stuffs I ramble about full-circle.

And as a bonus, for those in doubt as to whether or not the Yezidis truly prefer the name "Azazel" for their Angel, I took the liberty of isolating this clip from the documentary "Yazidis: The Black Snake" for my youtube channel where you get to see a real-life Yezidi at Lalish directly and unambiguously clarifying that "Azazel" is indeed the name:

Setianism / Re: On the Immortality of the Psyche
« on: January 05, 2018, 02:17:11 pm »
As for as my own views on the immortality of the psyche, I pretty much covered all that in this other thread here:

But since you're asking about Aquino's views, I figure this might add a bit of clarification. It's an excerpt from his book "MindStar":

Is attainment of the immortality of the ba or psyche a technique which the individual has to “learn”? Must one hurry to do so, lest one’s body expire before the transition is mastered? Quite the contrary, as the sage in Her-Bak emphasized: This immortality is innate in all conscious beings. You possess it already, by evidence of that same consciousness which enables you to read and comprehend these words. It is nothing which initiation, either Setian or natural, “confers” on you; rather it is something to which conventional churches have resolved to blind you, and which materialistic science has denied simply because it is an aspect of existence which transcends that science.

. . .

It is a function of the Temple of Set, as of the ancient Egyptian priesthoods, the Pythagorean Brotherhood, and the Platonic Academy before it, to inspire the Elect of humanity to awaken to that knowledge which is latent within their consciousness and needs only to be appreciated as such.

. . .

Religious eschatology myths and contemporary science-fiction interpretations like Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey characteristically fall silent at precisely the moment when the subject becomes most interesting: Once you are re-created as a disincarnate, immortal being, freed from both your material body and the OU to which it was permanently chained during your incarnation, what can and should you do next? Centuries of religious mythology and imagery have left “Heaven” utterly unexplained, with the exception of a few anemic efforts such as Dante’s Paradiso, and Clarke’s “star child” merely stared vacantly in embryonic incomprehension. Faced with “salvation” or “redemption”, it would seem, humanity finds itself helplessly adrift. An old Nietzschean spectre is recalled: that of the “last man” [or in this case “first metaman” not knowing what to do without some threat to confront, some imperfection in oneself or notself to be addressed.

This may remain a dismaying prospect for the uninitiated posthuman, but for one who has activated the MindStar it is of no concern, because the fulfillment of MindStar engenders the expansion of one’s personal SU to infinity in time and space. You have become literally your own creator of universes, which may be whatever, whenever, and however you envision them. If you miss the old, finite OU, simply recreate it. Populate it with whomever you wish, including family or friends at their most idealized. Modify those features of it which you didn’t like to your current desires. Finally, in the company of innumerable other immortalized SUs, share all or parts of yours with them as you may wish, while they reciprocate. Beyond this you may enter into the company of the neteru as one of them, and with or without their boundaries and laws create new realities, new universes unlike anything previously imaginable: a phantasmagoria of sphinxes, chimaeras, and gryphons perhaps. In this true and ultimate reality, you have become divine through your MindStar, and all that remains is to enjoy it forever.

In other words, yeah, Aquino is 100% dead serious about the full-blown immortality of the psyche. Make no mistake, none of his statements about it are meant to be at all metaphorical. It's pretty much the centerpiece of what the LHP is really all about to him. He absolutely rejects the notion of materialist science that believes consciousness is the product of a physical brain.

And here's a little bit of him stressing it in the "600 Club," in response to a materialist who was grilling Aquino about it:

If [as I was Existentially resigned pre-1969] you see yourself as nothing more than a stimulus/response metabolic accident in which "consciousness" is an incidental excretion - a sort of "brain faeces" - then this topic & discussion are meaningless to you. You are nothing more than a zit of Natural Law to process external fuels, eject wastes, fuck to create more zits, and then decompose "leaving not a rack behind". . . .

If on the other hand you become aware of your MindStar as the Egyptians did, you become not only consequential but immortal: a creator god of unlimited prerogative. Want an "artistic" preview? Take a tour at the cumination of MindStar with a Sphinx and a Chimaera, or if you like with Clark Ashton Smith:

So here's my serious answer to your serious question: Which do you wish to be - an Emperor of Dreams or a brain-turd?

(Mainly wanted to add that last bit just cuz of his "brain-turd" line :mrgreen:)

Edit: Went back and double checked the section "Immortality of the Psyche" in "Black Magic" cuz I hadn't read it in a good while, and noticed part of that "MindStar" stuff quoted above was reprinted from that very section in "Black Magic" you were originally posting about! I thought it sounded familiar . . . Sorry if my reply was somewhat redundant cuz of that. Anyway, it was worth it cuz of the brain-turd quip. And as a plug for "MindStar."

Oh yeah. Crowley certainly enriched his meaning of "666" with all sorts of Qabalistic stuffs, but none of that at all refutes or takes away from the primary meaning of being a reference to the Beast of Revelations. Also, I'm pretty sure Crowley was well aware that the Qabalah and Tree of Life scheme, with its own "nice" meanings for "666" is alot younger than Revelations, despite the wails of those who seriously think that stuff is some ancient Moses-era Hebrew stuff.

All of Crowley's insistence on the positivity of his system, and the positivity of his terms, is ultimately only a way to insist that Satan is holy and positive. And besides, the folks who tend to think all that means "not Satanic" tend to miss that Crowley vehemently hated Xianity and their standards of morals. What is positive, light, and good to Crowley is not even slightly meant to imply it's also what's positive, light and good to standard Abrahamic beliefs. People also tend to forget that the things that are most "evil" in Abrahamism are not universal standards of "evil" such as hate, murder, wanton destruction, etc. Worshipping other gods besides "Yahweh" is the epitome of evil, not obeying their "god" is the most evil thing one can do.

Crowley talks alot about light, holiness, etc, of course. But, people tend to gloss over that the sort of ceremonies he calls the holiest of holies is things like . . . ya know, getting pounded in the butt after cutting "666" into your chest while reading twisted versions of the Lord's Prayer in front of paintings of goat-gods and shit.

Crowley ranks as one of the biggest trolls in history. It takes some sophisticated trolling to get people to regularly participate in a Mass that's heavily modelled on the Xian Mass, but you wind up eating semen and menstrual blood while praising names that Crowley directly associates with Satan, while a naked chick is on the altar, and all the while the participants are 100% convinced it has no relation to the historical "Black Mass." It's probably for the best that most people don't look into the details of what sort of bodily fluids Guiborg and them were using in their hosts and stuff back in the 17th century, and the witch-cults before. They'd probably not be amused.

Yeah, Liber Samekh is pretty goddamn obvious as to what it is. It's a giant invocation to Satan and His Bride Babalon as God/Goddess. What cracks me up is the way most folks try to get around it. It's usually by turning towards the Barbarous Words themselves, and saying something like:

"See, these words didn't originally mean any of that, and since Crowley associates 'O' with the Devil, that's just how those words come out in 'translation.' He's only talking about 'O' or 'Ayin,' not 'the Devil.'"

But bruh, what they seem to be missing here, is that Crowley was under no obligation to HAVE to "translate" those words in the manner he did. He took massive liberties with it. Dude went OUT OF HIS WAY to turn that shit into a giant invocation to Satan ON PURPOSE. His reason for doing so is pretty obvious for anyone not bending over backwards to pretend a dude who called himself "The Beast 666" and advocated throwing Xians to lions wasn't Satanic.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Explaining Magic with Psychology
« on: December 31, 2017, 10:22:38 pm »
To that list of 5 things, I would maybe add:

6. Concrete, physical phenomenon seemingly caused by spirits that have been called on and witnessed by third parties, including people being physically accosted/assaulted by said spirits and/or physical items being moved/thrown/stolen, etc by spirits.

7. Curses that cause the actual destruction (death) of targets who had no idea that they were cursed at all. (Although this can be, and usually is, chalked up to coincidence.)

8. Curses that cause the target to start experiencing phenomenon as outlined in number (6).

General LHP Discussion / Re: Odin - Both a LHP and a RHP God?
« on: December 27, 2017, 08:56:35 am »
I think Odin can be approached in a LHP capacity just as easily as in a RHP conception of Him, if not more so. His sacrifice of Self to Self to further the power of Self speaks for itSelf!

To me, much of the Havamal offers good, solid advice on things such as morality, kindness, and friendship in a way that is practical and not geared towards self-deprecation as in the proverbs of Abrahamic  religions. The Havamal is a collection of proverbs for the man who honors and cherishes his Self. Kindness and friendship are dwelt on heavily, but it is stressed that this is to be reserved only for those who are close to you, those who you honor and cherish as friends. In the Havamal, I find much in common with the outlook on life presented in The Satanic Bible.

I personally don't find conceptions of him as a demiurge to be at all incompatible with the LHP either. But, then again, I'm not at all anti-cosmic, and see the material world as the creation of the gods as a tool for spirit to further create and enjoy separate existence, and not as any sort of affront to the Self or individuality.

For a long time now, I've personally considered Odin and Loki to be two sides of one coin, two masks of one Trickster. I of course am not implying that the ancient Norse themselves held such a view, but it works for me. Much like I view Set/Horus, or Satan/Lucifer, to be "Yin/Yang" views on "the Devil," I view the combination of Loki/Odin to be of the same class of terminology for the Prince of Darkness. Because of that, I found King Mob's article, "The Mysteries of Ragnarok," to be particularly enjoyable. Really cool stuff in there.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4