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.
Lots of increasingly public issues with the ToS these days. I'll probably just stay out of it from here on out, if you're too close to a sinking ship it can suck you down with it.What problems?
As much as I have huge respect for the TOS, Including Mr. Aquino. I shall focus on the problems of the TOS of what I personally think it needs to be addressed on.Not sure what you are talking about. I was never charged anything, or asked for any further money other than the annual membership fee.
Yes, the Temple of Set has been a key component for me, and it has made me the way I am today. In which I am glad I had the opportunity to study outside of that organizations literatures and texts.
However as much as TOS has been beneficial to most of us and the fact it's a spiritual organization, the main problem is the fact that it's also a money making machine just like the COS.
The Temple of Set of course is informative about their organization and their philosophy that they show to the public. But in order to understand more of the esotericism you must join the Organization to spend your money on fees of degrees and literature.
What is sad is the fact that you have certain individuals like me who have been instantly attracted to the philosophy of the organization, and who would like to learn more of their esotericism but can't because of the organizations greed.
The Temple of Set needs to change, but unfortunately it would never change because all the organization cares about is sucking you in for money than rather studying more about the benefits and spirituality Setianism offers.
The Temple of Set says that it's a Temple for everyone, if so erase your hypocrisy and start acting truthfully to your ethics.
It is a well-known fact that I do not agree with Kapalika's understanding of the left hand path or Hinduism. this is why I was surprised by your association between us.In terms of the LHP I would define worship as placing something or someone on a higher spiritual level than oneself.Depends on what you mean by spiritual level - but merely believing that another entity is more powerful than oneself doesn't mean one is worshiping it, imo, nor would that belief be unLHPy in and of itself. Else, if this belief was forbidden to an LHPer and would turn out to be true, one would need to believe untruth to be an LHPer.QuoteWhat is the "Hindu approach towards deities"?Well, it's not the same approach in all forms of Hinduism of course, but she wrote something about LHP-Tantra in her last comment in this thread - this was what I was referring to:In Tantra, the LHP sects traditionally imitate the deities in a literal sense to take on their traits.I had been imprecise as you had just quoted the same so I thought you would know what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, pretty sure I heard of similar also in other forms of Hinduism, especially of course the advaita forms of it.
The idea is to become the deity which is synonymous with becoming equal to the deity but distinct because the god is a tool towards liberation . It is worship of Self. The deity is the vessel. This applies to any kind of path that seeks apotheosis.
This kind of worship lies out of fast and hard categories of theism and atheism.
In terms of the LHP I would define worship as placing something or someone on a higher spiritual level than oneself.You can worship whatever/whoever you want . . . the quest is, why would you want to worship anything other than your Self? I'd like to point out that admiration and emulation are not forms of worshiping.
Could you provide some definition of worship then?
According to Merriam Webster it's
"1 : to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
2 : to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion"
And admiration is a central aspect of worship in my opinion and can easily lead to emulation.
I wouldn't adopt such a dogmatic disbelief. I simply don't know whether non-corporeal entities exist, and I have heard of some stuff that is more easily explained by positing their existence.
We Mercuræns do not fall into what we believe to be delusion in regards to non-corporeal entities. Rather, we strive to realize further and further the only GOD we will ever come to know and hopefully understand . . . our GodSelf, or Greater Self.
Playing with archetypal structures and the like is merely reorganizing our neural synapses towards our ultimate goal.
Make no mistake, we believe those on 'any' so-called LHP who even entertain the ideas of non-corporeal entities or anything other than one's Greater Self are delusional at worst and confused at least.
I would rather someone worship Satan, or a pre-Christian god instead of Yahweh. I believe some gods are what I call "pretenders to the throne" i.e. anti-natural deities which seek eradication of innate nature.We Mercuræns do not fall into what we believe to be delusion in regards to non-corporeal entities. Rather, we strive to realize further and further the only GOD we will ever come to know and hopefully understand . . . our GodSelf, or Greater Self.
Yahweh is the most popular of this, and in the Christian Bible they say that when a sinner accepts Yeshua that their old nature "dies" and that they gain a new nature (hence being "born again").
Contrasting, Satanists are "born, not made" just one day someone becomes aware of the description. Hindu view is that one's nature as divine is innate, just unrealized. Hence there is no destruction of the old nature, rather the destruction is of the new, illusion of confusion that obscures pure sight of nature (shuddha vidya). It is still pro-nature.
If a Satanist, Luciferian or Setian attempts to attain some form of "higher self" that is a realizing one's full potential, this is essentially embracing said nature. It was always there inside of them, innate.
Christianity would say to forsake this, and instead trust everything to a deity that keeps one limited so that they can be controlled. It is illusion and delusion, or in some cases something akin to a thought form that has taken on it's own life that group thought can no longer contain. It's existence relies on people being kept in spiritual infancy, otherwise they would realize it's unreal nature and it would die.
With the foundation of the natural world gone, or at least avoided, people stray further from their innate nature and become more stuck in ignorance. This is why I worship Satan and exalt the natural world; it is the key through which enlightenment is attained.
As it says on our homepage, "The Path of Darkness leads to Enlightenment." At least where I am coming from, the Universe and Kali are traditionally seen as "Darkness" and it is said the way to Shiva is through worship of Shakti (Darkness).
Many of us already do this, Setians have Set and the Black Flame, and Satanists have Satan and the Carnal. Luciferians emulate the same ideas, but with light to symbolize the revelation itself rather than the method but it's the same between all these paths IMO it's just different language and symbolism. These are all Left Hand Path so it makes sense that the methodology and underlying premise is the same.
I should clarify that on Luciferianism I think that there is more of a focus on balance. In Satanism this is sometimes touched upon for example in the idea of "counter productive pride" ect Setianism as far as I can tell, focuses more on exerting effort towards the realized self, as a process of refinement. Similar to Luciferian in that aspect of balance, but with more of a focus on overcoming the limitations of nature while embracing the more emergent aspects of consciousness.
In other words I think the underlying premises are largely the same, it's a difference of focus in various areas and different sides of similar (although not identical) "puzzles". What some might consider "unnatural" or supernatural I might consider totally "natural" which can really confuse the discussion, so take into consideration I am describing natural as that which is the most innate quality of something even if it is "alien" or "different" from the material world.You can worship whatever/whoever you want . . . the quest is, why would you want to worship anything other than your Self? I'd like to point out that admiration and emulation are not forms of worshiping.
If one takes the position that Satan's nature and our nature are the same, or at least from the same source, then it is a veneration of the qualities that one seeks to emulate.
Functionally, worship of an archetype is to try to emulate and take on those traits. This is common in symbolic Satanism just without explicit worship. In Tantra, the LHP sects traditionally imitate the deities in a literal sense to take on their traits.
The idea is to become the deity which is synonymous with becoming equal to the deity but distinct because the god is a tool towards liberation . It is worship of Self. The deity is the vessel. This applies to any kind of path that seeks apotheosis.
This kind of worship lies out of fast and hard categories of theism and atheism.
I truly hope you are clarifying this for others . . .otherwise . . . a DOUBLE WUTThank you for the clarification. So it does have to do with your own definition of entities, then, with your definition of an entity being non-corporeal. (The usual definition of an entity is something with a distinct and independent existence, which would make your statement "I don't believe in entities outside of myself" as embracing solipsism.)Wut? LOL . . .On the other (left) hand, being that I consider myself to be an apex predator, I will eat everything and anything I desire.Regarding the sacrifice aspect. I don't believe in entities outside of myself, therefore I have no need to offer myself something in return for something I already have.How do you reconcile these two statements? Do you prey on yourself? (My guess it would have to do with how you define "entities.")
Apex Predator = eat/feed on whatever I want
"don't believe in entities outside of myself"
All gods, devils, demons & angel things are aspects of our unconscious mind.
"Do you prey on yourself?"
I gather you are confused with what I was talking about?
I addressed eating meat in one reply and addressed sacrificing to an entity in another reply. They really weren't meant to be connected.
Wut? LOL . . .On the other (left) hand, being that I consider myself to be an apex predator, I will eat everything and anything I desire.Regarding the sacrifice aspect. I don't believe in entities outside of myself, therefore I have no need to offer myself something in return for something I already have.How do you reconcile these two statements? Do you prey on yourself? (My guess it would have to do with how you define "entities.")
Not sure where you got your info from but within the animal kingdom there are relatively few sentient animals.Sentient life is precious to me, I normally would not kill or eat a sentient being.
That said, if I had to kill the meat I do eat, I probably would eat a lot of fish.
I have no problem allowing others to do my dirty work and kill inert life for my food.
Pretty much all animals are concious and self aware... so not sure what you mean by sentient here, since almost every animal qualfiies. The three most eaten meats are cow, pig and chicken. Cows are surprisingly intelligent and agile (I know, I've taken care of cattle before) and pigs are literally smarter than dogs. Chickens have a social order and respond to people with self awareness. So by the dictionary definition I googled, all those are "sentient".
I practice this:
I try my best to redefine antinomianism in a new light, one that places it at our inner war with our shadow self and in lieu of individuating one's self. Whereas Heterodoxy seems to be firmly attached to the nomos (to use your word) of religion and culture.
I seem to be failing . . . however;
(from Thomas Karlsson's talk given at Flambeau Noir in Ottawa April 2017)
Antinomianism, in the spiritual and philosophical meaning:
a) Defining the utmost realities through negations and
b) going against the grain, to be aware of unconscious patterns
c) building a higher moral through breaking free from simple social morality defined by the majority (a concept actually close to ethical idealism).
a) Apophatic (via negation) approach rather than cataphatic approach
b) I am often contrarian
c) I do work hard to try to bring the nomos out of the unconscious and into consciousness for examination. Not only is this a needed element for the evolution of society, but it is also an excellent skill to prompt people to bring up other stuff from their unconscious mind and rationally examine it.
____________________________________________________________QuoteAntinomianism as a praxis of spiritual dissent manifests as both a methodology and a practicum to personal spiritual freedom. Antinomianism represents a historical methodology and post-modern evolution of individualized thought that seeks freedom from the confines of cultural, social and genetic/memetic programming. The path of spiritual dissent has most often been documented and categorized as that of the Left Hand Path (LHP). The path of harmonious acceptance of man as he is and the giving over of self-responsibility to a higher force has most often been represented by the Right Hand Path (RHP).If you are apathetic to your unconscious cultural programming, then how are you going to bring it into consciousness and examine it? That's basically the same effect as RHP repression of ideas outside of the "norm."QuoteI try my best to redefine antinomianism in a new light, one that places it at our inner war with our shadow self and in lieu of individuating one's self. Whereas Heterodoxy seems to be firmly attached to the nomos (to use your word) of religion and culture.Well yes, stuff that is repressed by the nomos will be in your Shadow, and antinomianism will help bring the repressed stuff up into consciousness for examination. The ego is "consuming" the Shadow. Heterodoxy doesn't always involve the conscious, rational, examination part--the danger of heterodoxy is ego becoming consumed by the Shadow, instead of vice-versa.QuoteTo practice heterodoxy is to accept these religious beliefs as something true and thus something to be at war with . . . I do not accept most religions, therefore, I have no use for heterodoxy.
You really lost me here . . .
Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.
Contrarian
1. a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
2. opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.
Just for the helluvit or is there some motive behind it?QuoteIf you are apathetic to your unconscious cultural programming, then how are you going to bring it into consciousness and examine it? That's basically the same effect as RHP repression of ideas outside of the "norm."I am apathetic to it because anytime I unveil some kind of cultural programming I immediately see it for what it is . . . nothing. After decades of this one becomes apathetic to it . . .QuoteThe thing is that there is both truth (wisdom) and falsehoods to be found in whatever nomos you are considering. To dismiss it all as false is to throw away discernment and throw the baby out with the bathwater.Everything other than my own, personal nomos I understand as not a part of me, but a part from someone else. I am only interested in the Universe I am creating for my Self.
