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 - Mindmaster

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
This came out literally when I started embracing Satanism, and it was scary as fuck. Because of this, I rarely would mention my interests in public for fear of physical harm. I can't believe how retarded people can be sometimes.

Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: March 15, 2018, 06:19:53 am »
Well said Mindmaster. I'm glad you get fully where I'm coming from. My view is a little more nuanced in that I think negative feelings are acceptable so long as they don't burden, but true hate always burdens, and preoccupies. So it's best to minimize feelings like that that don't aid in the path.

Feelings are O.K., IMHO, if they are in the now. They come, they go, you forget them. If you do more than that it just gets you distracted and wastes all of your energy. That applies to all emotions whether or they're good or bad from your perspective, but understand I'm not conveying you should be an unfeeling monster or something. I'm merely implying that you should strive to live in the now and the more you can do that the more productive you will be at every single thing you are involved in. It's not even much better if you chase after things like happiness because when you feel you lack it you are sad. It just gets worse from there really... Trade them all for a disposition of serenity and profit, basically.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« on: March 10, 2018, 08:15:24 pm »
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't muddling of path apparent in all systems of beliefs and practice - this is a rule, rather than an exception in most cases. It's perhaps more beneficial to speak in tendencies, but don't mistake my convenience of language for some assertion that such divisions in reality exist. :D

I reject the divisions, in any sense but a colloquial convenience, because regardless of the subjective impressions of an individual outwardly others will see that accomplished person as great, accomplished, or a sage. Whichever path they decide to embrace this acknowledgement comes from others and matters so little with how one sees their actions themselves. In my view, binding your HGA and communicating with such a creature are the same action - they both seek awareness. It's not so much what you are doing with it that matters in the sense that they are your toys in your mind how you play with them is up to you. :D In my mind, such a creature doesn't exist because you have to think it for it to 'be'. You have to presume that your efforts in this regard will be productive, for example, and that's where the divisions become indeterminate again. Both the LHP or RHP approach require faith in this context, basically, so they aren't altogether different in analysis despite apparently different aims.

A realization of nonduality is something I can't give you and the words on the subject really don't do it justice. The best I can do is clarify that nonduality awareness doesn't invalidate a duality awareness. People often think that these ideas are in combat or opposed, but in reality the nondual realization is simply being aware of the bits that duality will fail constantly to explain. It is merely knowing that the separation and the concept of it are illusions and that the mind manufactures these perceptions out of convenience. That's not really the posture of denying they exist, but keeping them in the proper perspective - that the differences are insignificant or minor and often mask the truth of the thing. :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: Discussion on Thelema: RHP or LHP?
« on: March 10, 2018, 05:24:48 pm »
Definitely LHP. I can see the argument there, that it is RHP, but in my opinion, a religion or philosophy does not have to strive to destroy social barriers via transgressive acts to qualify as Left Hand Path. The path isn't really about transgression as much as it is a quest for self improvement and a more self-centric form of Enlightenment.

Do you not destroy all barriers by simply adhering to ones own nature above all?

The basic fundamental goal of the RHP and the LHP is a realization of the truth, in essence, they lead to the same destination. The RHP thinks you should approach this through ego-sublation, the
LHP thinks you should do it by cutting that hunk of cheese into the shape you prefer to consume. In the later case, to express that as enlightenment is a tad confusing, being that such terminology is used by those whom have completed a process of willful ego destruction and the LHP is all about boosting ego-mind-body connections to some extent. Sadly, where I am at now I see that the LHP is just a half-circle of a whole and if you truly reach the end of that curve you can see where they merge. If you perfect your mind-body unit you will come to fully analyze your useless traits and actions for what they are and in the process of doing that you will unconsciously move in the direction of the RHP since all roads lead to Rome, metaphorically speaking.

Whether that opinion holds popular with the majority of the membership on the forum or not it is pretty easy to arrive at this conclusion with a bit of introspection and time. :D

Setianism / Re: My GF just blew my mind a bit
« on: March 10, 2018, 05:02:37 pm »
So I'm guest speaking today and my SO came with me to observe. After the first class she informed me that I made a contradiction. The contradiction being:

1. Consciousness is axiomatic so cannot be debated.

2. God is consciousness (from Setian Idealism)

3. The existence of God can be debated.

4. Therefore #1 contradicts #3.

I think the issue is that self consciousness being axiomatic doesn't imply that god is consciosness or exists at all. However she countered that if God=Consciousness but we cannot debate the two the same way there is still a contradiction.

I'm... Not sure how to respond lol.

Though my previous post elucidates much of the matter from the perspective of my experience. I wouldn't say that whether God is debatable indicates a lack of existence, but rather begs the question of what does existence mean to you. :D

What is consciousness? Is it all these conditioned patterns and sounds good things running around in your head? Or is it simply awareness? You'd be conscious whether you were thinking of it or not, obviously.

Then this extends to the possibly of God-Consciousness being real regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not. Without having an experience such as mine, you simply cannot know. The evidence of such a thing is in awareness and if you are not aware you can't do anything but mince words, debate, and doubt. Mind you, I don't feel my experience in this regard is unique or beyond the reach of anyone else whom is willing to commit to the goal but to say that these are merely words on the page in comparison to the perspective shift is an understatement to say the least.

Your error isn't so much in the conclusions you've presented, but in that the secret proof is a process of gnosis which others would have to obtain for their incorrect beliefs to erode from their mind. If they did have that direct knowledge there simply wouldn't be a discussion at all. So the real question is, since your logical mind can't make sense of this can you still believe it? The dilemma is not that she questioned your views, but you weren't operating from the perspective where you realized the arguments were non-arguments. :D

Setianism / Re: My GF just blew my mind a bit
« on: March 10, 2018, 04:40:13 pm »
To me "God" = the non-conscious mechanical natural order of the Universe.  How one could even begin to argue that "God" = consciousness is nonsensical imo, and a complete dismissal and total non-understanding of underlying Setian philosophy.  To even think there is a contradiction here is an absurdity and the whole idea is a non-sequitur.

Set, even though a Master of the Universe, is not "God", nor does he wish to be.

From a logical and dualistic perspective I agree with your assertions here. However, from the God-Consciousness camp (something like Advaita Vedanta) it's simply a process of onion layers. The objective reality is merely the skin, subsequent layers yield from the material to the ethereal or subtle, and so on. Such a God-Consciousness would simply underlie everything to such a degree that it would be imperceptible in any conventional means of reckoning it. That's not to say it doesn't exist, it's just it would be impossible for us to tell without having access to it or being aware of that directly in some other manner. In essence, the basis of their philosophy is realize your godliness rather than becoming one. (aka Xeper)

However, as an anecdote to all of this I had managed to have an ego-death experience before in my youth and as a result had a telepathic experience which still counters much of this reasoning. In that, I had managed to actually managed to enter another persons mind directly - if we weren't all connected or "the same thing" aka God-Consciousness this would be impossible - our mind-body limitations would require a means or vehicle to achieve such communication. By whatever mechanism this occurred, I was shocked, and didn't have the words to describe the event until recently. The impact of such an experience is impossible to explain fully, it's like being shown a secret truth of the universe and then having to live your life with that knowledge knowing everyone in your existence would deem you crazy for sharing it. In eastern philosophies, of course, all of this is easily explainable - I am God, you are God, and we're all parts of the same thing in many manifestations. I'm only really able to talk about it now because I've deemed my pride or shame as invalid reasons to obscure the truth of my experience and selfishly keep such knowledge from others. I felt it relevant to mention here, because it so relevant to your points in this post. :D

Satanism / Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist
« on: March 10, 2018, 04:09:11 pm »
Cross post from a debate topic I made on another forum:

Hate is a very strong emotion. Much is made, particularly among certain types, of the fact that humans are both hating and loving creatures. I honestly think such attitudes are rooted in tribalism. Love your friends, hate your enemies. Such has been the battle cry for eons of the warlike religions, political ideologies and governmental entities who sought to expand through violence and forced conversion.

It seems for some they feel as if they should love a few and default to a hateful attitude towards many others. I don't agree. Rather, I'd propose, hate should be rationed just as those like LaVey told the Satanist to ration love in The Satanic Bible (though I'll take this further later on). Hate is a destructive emotion by nature and its liable to backfire if one isn't careful with it.

"But but! Those intolerant, or evil or brainwashing x religion/group!" Well, my dear diabolical friend... simply moving the sword from the right hand to the left hand is still using a sword (see what I did there? :p). I've actually heard Matthew 10:34 and Luke 14:26 used to justify hate mongering, for example. Sadly the trap of hate is one easy to fall into. Those verses, Yeshua bringing a sword to divide, and saying one must hate others to love him, I chose for a reason and not randomly. It's again that tribalism; that old us vs them that's the trap I'm warning against.

I don't consider myself a LaVeyan in any sense, and I will break down a relevant statement in his Satanic Bible and what I disagree with, since this is what I am comparing my position to:

“Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.”  - Anton LaVey's The Satanic Bible (1969)

Okay, so love and hate are intense. So far so good.  But the moment he starts talking about indiscriminate love he never contrasts about indiscriminate hate. Yes, I understand that most hateful Satanic types do discriminate, although too often I've seen it be over petty things. There's seems to be something in the id so to speak, that thrives on the release of hating people for stupid crap. This isn't to say this is LaVeyans specifically who do that, funny enough I've seen it with theists quite a lot, but in a lot of ways they take things like this to an extreme and so the passage merited quoting. I picked LaVeyan / Church of Satan out of any other sect as it's one of the few notable groups espousing a view on the pro-hate end of the spectrum. (also funny enough there are more LaVeyan influenced theistic Satanists than first impressions might give otherwise if my online interactions are any indication).

I don't know how we determine who "deserves" hate. What LaVey failed to account for is that since Satanism exalts the subjectivity of the individual there won't be any measure beyond whim for who "deserves" what. Such inclinations in my opinion quickly lend to tyranny of those higher up in the social "stratification" as LaVey's successor Gilmore would put it.

I don't think 99.9% of people can experience "indiscriminate love" but surely an attempt respect for all life is at least on some level rational. Satan is the god of man, of our nature. And there is a part of our nature that does seek to better itself. I'm reminded of an Episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the Android named Data (who wishes to be a human) says it's not important that he will never become fully human, just important that he is always trying to improve himself. That to me, that constant self improvement, and personal evolution is what is at the heart of humanity and Satanism. So why can't we aim to try to love more? Perhaps even universally so? It might not be possible, but it's surely worth the effort.

LaVey almost made a valid point, but missed the mark when he said "repressed hate" instead of "repressed emotion". Hate itself, from what I've come to understand of it, festers and grows off of itself. And that's the danger. Most people (I hope) don't take out their frustrations on other people or their loved ones. I honestly think LaVey might of been speaking from experience when he spoke on that.

If someone has someone they really dislike causing them trouble they might diffuse the tension with something healthy like a hobby or working out, whatever. But taking it out on a living being? Even loved ones if they can't against the aggressor? Something more is going on there that most well adjusted people don't have (or at least I hope so anyways).

There are times though, I think "hate" of a sort is warranted, but very rarely so. It's too subjective and honestly if something is that malicious one can address the person or situation indifferently and rationally. I also would say that hate is pretty much something people should avoid as much as possible since it uses up energy and effort. Quite literally it's not worth the effort. If they are truly that bad, it's not worth hating and getting worked up over. They don't deserve your hate. That's why I say, who really deserves hate?

A Satanist should seek to improve themselves, not get carried away with those who are against them. That energy is better spent on becoming a better person, a better Satanist, a better human. Maybe Data had a point. Maybe it isn't the fact that one will ever stop hating entirely but just the fact that they won't be consumed or distracted by it as much and can better spend that effort on themselves is all that matters.

And a topic for another time, but nor does that mean one should be self righteous or arrogant in their dismissal of those they now "don't hate" :) Truly not caring is even less than that; it's not having much of an emotional reaction at all.

Hate is simply a conditioned response, in essence it's being a robot and doing what other people have told you to do or you tell yourself to do based on some faulty logic that you trust in. It's a non-thinking position and therein lies the true folly of the thing. Acting without thinking is just about the most un-Satanic thing I can think you are capable of doing. It's a shame that no where in The Satanic Bible was LaVey clear about this other than in respect to obvious blunders like dogma, or other sacred cows.

The other point of contention, at this juncture, is another ultimate "Satanic Sin" that goes unsaid in TSB - wasting your time. Channel your hate, spend time trolling people on the Internet, or whatever - it's all wasting time you could be using to do something productive. If self-mastery is the ultimate goal of a Satanic path, then it behoves one to strike this attribute from ones character ASAP in the aim to optimize your path for efficiency. Displaying this, like I've seen so many others on the Internet affiliated with the top ranks of CoS, in public, is simply signalling your complete failure to implement and master the path. If you are an atheistic Satanist no doubt the worst thing you could ever do is squander your life on useless activities since this is all the time you have.

Many try to justify this behavior when their egos are bruised as well, as if that is any excuse. That is the fundamental flaw of the mind-body association in the first place, that your conditioned beliefs are you and that you must die for them. The proof that refutes is simple enough: Were you burdened by any of these ideas as a child? We don't start from a position of hate, we learn it - therefore it fundamentally is a delusion in our heads. How can it be real if we must be trained to behave in such a fashion? Our fundamental nature, of course, must be beyond this and the only reason we trust in it is because of others we trust in our lives echoing those sentiments. Again, this sleep-walking through life is the ultimate contradiction for paths which espouse some sort of self-mastery. What self are you talking about anyway? The one that basically was conditioned by being beat like a dog? It's a classic trap, if you buy into the bullshit of the thing. To achieve ultimate mastery of such a path, in my opinion, you must take the ropes off your body that are holding you down so you can act freely as you need. Without this, you really are just pretending to embrace the left-handed path in the sense that your ego deludes itself into thinking it is achieving the aim. One hog tied by a myriad of delusions is not mentally free, nor are they really following such a path.

Gaming / Re: What are you playing?
« on: March 03, 2018, 08:01:12 am »
@Xepera maSet  I've heard amazing things about Oblivion, I need to play it. I'm gonna be honest, I'm not big on medieval fantasy settings so I stayed away from that series until Skyrim but it always intrigued.

Funnily enough, I'm playing Bethesda's *other* RPG series, Fallout. In my top two gaming series for sure, the other being Metal Gear Solid.

I'm currently playing Fallout 4 but I'll probably play 1,2, or 3 after I beat. I'm trying to cut back on it becuase I end up binging it on the weekends and regretting it. It's a hard game to only play for a few hours. My last session did end up with me wiping out an entire cult with a nuke then watching a guy I tried to arrest commit suicide so I mean, not a total loss of time.

Oblivion is about 100% better than Skyrim in story and fun. I'd still play Witcher series games first, as they are even better than that. Don't have to be a fantasy gamer to dig either, they're just well done.

General LHP Discussion / Re: The main goal and path of magic?
« on: February 28, 2018, 06:26:15 am »
This kind of boils down to the whole do what that wilt in Thelema but also an important tenent in LHP, individualism, as well as the general "know thyself" in occultism in general. Basically, who the fuck are we to judge another person for their actions especially if they're on a spiritual path. Antinomianism falls in to line with that school of thought to which is another trademark of LHP. If you can truly know yourself intimately then no one else's opinions matter.

The idea that eastern paths lead to dissolution is a common mistake from western magickal circles, a yogi still has a functioning mind before and after he achieves his enlightenment. He just realizes there is more to himself than that mind-ego complex, and that mind is basically a sensory interpreting organ for their Self (atman). It is not the part that acts on the known knowledge - that's buddhi, or the unthinking mind. (It just knows what to do automatically, based on previous experiences without rationality. In essence, you could translate this as true will - it is similar.) The idea in their systems is simply to get the chattering manas (the thoughts in your head) to get out of your way and let buddhi do the job. My criticism stems mostly from this misunderstanding of the process, nothing is lost or gained, just realized or optimized. :D Simply put, there is no difference between the western concepts and the eastern in goal - simply different terminology. A wise person once said, "Language is used to obscure the thoughts, and thoughts are used to obscure reality." :D

I judge Crowley's actions based on the fact that they were mostly harmful to himself or others, as is plain to see. In that light, it's hard to consider him wise at all regardless of the intelligence he seemed to occasionally manifest. When one picks someone to learn from, it is quite reasonable to ask, "Do I want to be this person?" I think most people would answer emphatically no, especially in his case. Regardless of that, I think he was pretty good at presenting material even if he didn't actually absorb it.

Eastern religions give multiple paths to the goal, dharma (for non-seekers), or realization. Realization would be equivalent to antinomianism in the truest sense, because in the extended sense what is right for the Atman to partake in is beyond morality even though moral codes are founded as a product of realization. (That's to say, realized seers in all religions came up with them.) In essence, they provide a cheat sheet to not make things worse while you sort it out, but eventually you'll probably figure out they're one in the same. :D Detaching from the ego desires just leads to dharma naturally, so it is a way of presenting the concepts to the intellect before you've done the other work and know yourself what to do. It is much similar to the way a parent tells a child not to do things before they know why. The goal of the eastern systems is to work away from the 'child mind' of following the rules, and learning enough about your Self to know why they were there in the first place.

General LHP Discussion / Re: The main goal and path of magic?
« on: February 27, 2018, 10:46:41 pm »
So when I say union with th HGA, I'm more of the lines of perfecting yourself to you reach your own individual Godhood. You are always the do-er and I like the interpretation of the HGA as the future you only seperated by time.

My initial commentary on this was along the lines of how most magickal acts seem to seek trivial ends. In regard to an "HGA" as a figure, how does one know that one doesn't already have this? I guess therein lies the dilemma, is it realization or seeking that matters? Perhaps, you just need to have a sit. :D

I guess if all magick acts were dedicated toward the realization of this HGA then theoretically through a process of surrender you would achieve such awareness, but it would take some philosophical rationalization that isn't inherent in western magickal systems. We'd have to surrender our acts to this HGA, admit that the HGA is the root cause of all actions, and 'I' am merely an imperfection of that ultimate state of being and any acts performed (magickal or otherwise) may impinge on reaching our perceived destination if not done with such an awareness.

Often, I find myself questioning Crowley's notions via the product of his actions in his life, it is obvious that though he played lip service to concepts like the HGA, but where he got that idea was from the east rather than the west. I don't consider myself a perfect student of the east, but some of his personality traits simply fly in the face of results along those lines. Specifically, if one has a lot of rough edges in their being it is likely that they have not absorbed such teachings. Even extremely small bits of progress along these lines will manifest in a way that people in your vicinity see them in a positive light, but they can't usually place words to what is different. My wife simply put it that I seemed more patient, but that is a gross understatement as she had no idea of the internal chatter which provoked such outward displays. :)

I think the key here is focused intent. It should be possible to curse their annoying actions in an effort to prevent them from being directed at you, without actually causing any real harm to the perpetrator. But I wouldn't view that in terms of helping anyone but yourself.

We could argue that in many ways living is its own curse, most people have the capacity to screw themselves up enough without any help. The pattern seems to be we don't get what we want unless we're lucky. The success of a curse then would seem to be profitable most of the time whether or not we acted, so are we merely pandering to our own confirmation bases in this case? :D

General LHP Discussion / Re: The main goal and path of magic?
« on: February 26, 2018, 03:06:41 am »
For me I take union with the higher self/daemon etc which in terms means living your life to the fullest and expressing your self and enacting your true will.

The philosophy of union troubles me only that implies that you exist in a dualistic dichotomy in the first place. (aka you can exist in a dualistic fashion) There is no way to prove either case (the other being non-dual), so I feel the only correct answer is to presume nothing. :D

If the goal is union, the method to achieve it would be renunciation of actions which play into the delusions of the mind that create the perceived separation. Similarly, the idea that 'I' can 'act' would have to be abolished as these would simply be reminders that you haven't reached the goal. So long as their is a 'doer' there is duality, in a nutshell.

Magick, to me, just doesn't seem to have that objective. It's all about the 'doer' , the 'doing', and why it's 'done'. 

Similarly, if there was no object of consciousness, no experience whatsoever - there would be no reason to say "I am", or to call it being. Consciousness and Phenomena (mental/physical) seem to sort of lean on each other.

Well, to explain this sensibly I'd merely be quoting Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi directly, so I might as well:

"It's only when you wake up from the dream, that you realize the dream was unreal."

Now, in the context he used that in a much longer passage it wasn't to imply that such phenomena do not exist, but rather that the maya prevades them until we realize ourselves fully. Until we wake up from the "waking dream" we are bound to it and know no other reality. You probably have experienced this yourself in dream state - the parameters of that reality prohibit you from challenging them whilst in a dream. Thus what you experience in that state is "objectively real to you" in the same way that it is in waking consciousness. You will experience fear, or any other calamity and not immediately think, "This is not real." It as just as real to you then as the "reality" is to your waking state. Thus, the only truth is that your consciousness exists since it is the only thing neither created or destroyed in the alternation of states. When this "waking dream" ends, again all you will have is the Self. The manifestations are merely props or anchor points in a sea of infinite consciousness.

Similarly, at this is the point where logic and materialism fails - you cannot undo or dissect the reality whilst being subject to it, but you can train your mind to get out of your way and realize your pure consciousness nature and then possibly determine how much of that nature exists in everything else. Until that point, any of us are just guessing really at the truth... That, however, isn't the natural state of our externally focused selves in modern times. It also isn't a "left hand path" friendly path, as for a time such a seeker would have to commit to destroying their logic, reasoning, and other presumptions for them to get out of the way; giving them no time or consideration and rebuking them. You can, however, experience the true Self nature readily - it is simply the silence between your thoughts. It is also the state of consciousness that is existing in "dreamless deep sleep", so that isn't some spooky thing that is an unknown or some nebulous religious concept. We take these experiences as "matter of fact" and typically ignore them - the only difference is a jnani (someone who has cleared their mind) is in a constant state of being in connection with the root Self consciousness. If the mind can be "cleared" it isn't real, thus anything founded within it is similarly unreal. So to further sum it up, there is "thinking" and "knowing" they are not the same. Knowing only requires awareness and thinking needs rules and those rules need to not offend the mind that thinks them. :D

This is sort of where it all goes to pot in that since the mind arbitrates what it thinks by what it likes, it rarely grasps the real truth (which would be the same awareness would yield), but the truth it can "make sense of" or "sounds good".

Other Religions / Re: Property Dualism 101
« on: February 10, 2018, 10:48:17 pm »
Of course. The property dualism is there whether it's ascribed either to Nature, Maya or something else.

From a non-dualistic perspective, it's not that they are 'not there'. Maya reflects more your own misunderstanding of 'things' not that the things do not exist. If you believe the things are separate from the oneness, or yourself, then you are influenced by maya. Maya doesn't say they're not there so much as they are not as they seem. Advaita doesn't even attempt to address this problem directly because it is unnecessary for understanding, they just go straight into working on the mind and its delusions about itself. When those delusions about the nature of 'I' are rectified, then the awareness establishes the actual reality and nothing more needs to be said. The goal then of Advaita is not to make you believe anything, but rather find within yourself the truth. The beliefs "espoused" by Advaita in this context are not dogma, but rather explanations on why you should know the Self (Atman) and what you have to gain by it. Generally, this is achieved by jnana (synonymous with atma vichara, or self-equiry), bhakti, or other practices. There are several ways to acheive the same result, though the method of bhakti (devotion) used by Advaita is different in that the focus is the "god within" and it is the object or aim.

The common mistake that becomes abundantly clear is:

If you have no consciousness then there is no logic nor materialism. :D

Ergo, consciousness supersedes them all as the "primal" base of existence.

Similarly to prove, if you are not aware of something it doesn't exist. You can chose to ignore logic or disregard materialism, but still be aware of something. Thus, it exists independently of these fictions of the mind or presumed ways of ordering the universe. Consciousness is therein the only real measure of any thing, in whatever capacity it is realized in. Thus you are "aware" or "not aware" of something, whether it makes sense to others is largely irrelevant.

Thoughts? :D

Pages: [1] 2 3 4