Author Topic: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?  (Read 1825 times)

NEMO 93

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2017, 02:26:29 am »
@Kapalika I'm incredibly sorry for the over-reaction. I took the "doubt you know much about mythology" as the personal insult. A bit silly but that's what happens when someone makes something core to their identity, I guess or have a passion about something.


I guess we're in agreement a little, we just have different definitions of Satanism. I'd say Leviathan has a place in Satanic workings based on my study of LHP philosophy. But then again, I have Pagan leanings so if I practiced Satanism, I would personally use multiple deities. I suppose that's why I lean torwards Luciferianism.

I have no idea what Puranic and Nonpuranic means. Do you mind giving me a run down on the dual vs nondaul intepretations? Hinduism has always been my weak spot in religious studies. It's really intimidating and I haven't had good experiences when praciting personally. I'd love to know more.

@Liu I'm definitely gonna have to read Panparadox now. It's gonna be weird seeing it swing the complete opposite way of the Gullveigarbok though which is so heavy on academic research and light on peronal gnosis. Same author, fucking black metal musicians are geeks when it comes to Norse stuff, I guess.

Yeah, religion has always been a form of control. Preisthood Government was a topic we covered in my intro to archeology class heavily. Very interesting on how it worked. Oddly, one could have seen government as a blessing back then as it provided security. From Western Civilization History courses, it doesn't seem like individualism was prioritized until Ancient Greece.

I'm not a huge fan of Plato but I feel like a lot of his stuff can be used for metaphors for spirituality and Occultism. He was definitely an individualist. I love Socrates. He was executed because he was such an amazing individual that he made people in charge, ie the state look bad. The recent he accepted his execution, at least in the Platonic recount of it, had nothing to do with the law. This is where the theories of forms are. He makes arguments about reincarnation and forms and states that a true philosopher who values and seeks wisdom is simply practicing for death. This is because he will finally know the true forms when he dies. His philosophical arguments for reincarnation mention something similar to an abyss. Also, he believed he would go to the positive afterlife where only exemplarary individuals would go in Hellenic schools of thought. However, we have no DIRECT writings from Socrates so there is a huge debate in how much Socrates actually said vs how much Plato wrote. I prefer Aristotle more but both are interesting. The main flaw with Greek Philosophy is they were theocratic so there was a lot they didn't question. Their arguments are based on assumptions that were taken for granted. Hell, it was Heretical for Descartes to question God when he did and I wonder if the whole burnings over supporting heliocentric models of the universe influenced a bias of attempting to prove God in his work.

Ultimately, I'm an existentialist/absurdist at heart but I value a lot of philosophers. Even if I fucking hate moral absolutism, Kant had some interesting ideas.

I funnily enough had the idea about quantam suicide before I read the thought expiriment too. Like what if the "hell" that people who commit suicide go to according to Christians is just another reality, slightly worse. Like Wristcutters: A Love Story which is a great movie.

I didn't know that view about anti-cosmocists, which is interesting. Hmmm.... It makes me think of the Aeon of Ma'at paradigm where they want to bring about a humanitarian current where everyone is free to do their own will with telepathy. You'd have to destroy the current Aeon to do it. Speaking of which @Kapalika I totally get where you're coming from. I have a passionate hate for 90 percent of Anticosmic texts out there and like 99 percent of the groups. But LHP in general has long attracted immature or off-balance people who don't truly comprehend it.

What's fucking horrible is that the actual good texts are hidden behind paywalls and limited editions. Ixaxaar, one of the priciest grimoire sellers, are really the only high quality Anti-cosmic stuff out there between their Thursatru lines and work of the guy who writers the Liber Falxifer series. Now, I have never read Falxifer but I find that his answers in this review is more accurate to my understanding of Anti-Cosmicism and expressed a much more mature, refined view.

http://www.ixaxaar.com/218-interview-2.html

There's still quite a bit I disagree with and your criticisms remain, but it might shed light on how unification with the demiurge can be Satanic. It makes sense to me, since the demiurge is not the creator in Gnosticism and it could be a way to stay on earth in Gnostic belief. That would give up individualism, I feel, so I fall more on the Draconian recreation of the universe and making yourself a God. However, I do feelthe nonduality of RHP that comes with "unification" could be applied to LHP, in some fashion. Hell, Antinomianism is a LHP way of achieving this nonduality.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Liu

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2017, 11:15:13 am »
I'm not a huge fan of Plato but I feel like a lot of his stuff can be used for metaphors for spirituality and Occultism. He was definitely an individualist. I love Socrates. He was executed because he was such an amazing individual that he made people in charge, ie the state look bad. The recent he accepted his execution, at least in the Platonic recount of it, had nothing to do with the law. This is where the theories of forms are. He makes arguments about reincarnation and forms and states that a true philosopher who values and seeks wisdom is simply practicing for death. This is because he will finally know the true forms when he dies. His philosophical arguments for reincarnation mention something similar to an abyss. Also, he believed he would go to the positive afterlife where only exemplarary individuals would go in Hellenic schools of thought. However, we have no DIRECT writings from Socrates so there is a huge debate in how much Socrates actually said vs how much Plato wrote. 
I guess I'll have to re-read that then because I got a very different impression.

Quote
What's fucking horrible is that the actual good texts are hidden behind paywalls and limited editions. Ixaxaar, one of the priciest grimoire sellers, are really the only high quality Anti-cosmic stuff out there between their Thursatru lines and work of the guy who writers the Liber Falxifer series. Now, I have never read Falxifer but I find that his answers in this review is more accurate to my understanding of Anti-Cosmicism and expressed a much more mature, refined view.
Well, there's still file-hosters if you are tight on money or things are sold out... [or is it against our forum rules that I mention such?] Vexior even uploaded Gullveigabok himself and linked it on his Facebook so at least he doesn't mind.

I like the Falxifer books for their information on historical backgrounds (cult of Señor la Muerte) and their mythology re-tellings. Gave me a huge appreciation for Cain and increased my interest in botanics  :mrgreen: But a huge part of them consists of ritual instructions I'm not gonna use anyway, especially as many call for cumbersome or even impossible ingredients. Whatever it is you wanna use those rituals for, by the time you are done gathering all ingredients it's either not important anymore or at least you have put already much more effort into the ritual than you so far had put into the real-life-steps necessary for furthering the goal, or that's the impression I was left with. Also, I'm not really that much into necromancy.
Haven't read the 3rd book, though.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 11:22:20 am by Liu »

NEMO 93

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2017, 05:10:45 pm »
@Liu

Thanks for telling me that about Vexior. I'll have to check his facebook out, I'd love to track down the first Thursatru book. It's the only one I'm missing.

Hmm, I might have to actually read the Falxifer series. I'm interested in Cain recently. I liked how he came across in the interview I read and I heard great things about the series.

Ixaxaar is really putting out great Left Hand Path stuff in general. I quite like Fall of Man and Scarlet Imprint as well but they're more conventional LHP.
"“I ate civilization. It poisoned me; I was defiled. And then," he added in a lower tone, "I ate my own wickedness.” -Aldous Huxley

Liu

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2017, 06:18:45 pm »
@Liu

Thanks for telling me that about Vexior. I'll have to check his facebook out, I'd love to track down the first Thursatru book. It's the only one I'm missing.

Hmm, I might have to actually read the Falxifer series. I'm interested in Cain recently. I liked how he came across in the interview I read and I heard great things about the series.

Ixaxaar is really putting out great Left Hand Path stuff in general. I quite like Fall of Man and Scarlet Imprint as well but they're more conventional LHP.
If I recall it right he deleted his Facebook in the meantime. But that's the link he posted: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58774173/Gullveigarbok-by-Vexior (admittedly, someone else seems to have done the uploading for him)
At that time I could download it there by logging in, but not sure whether that's still possible, that site has been pushing premium a lot.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2017, 06:31:11 pm by Liu »

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2017, 01:39:25 am »
@Kapalika I'm incredibly sorry for the over-reaction. I took the "doubt you know much about mythology" as the personal insult. A bit silly but that's what happens when someone makes something core to their identity, I guess or have a passion about something.

It's alright mistakes happen. I made one myself by not wording that better. I think my words were "not an expert either" but I can see how that wasn't the greatest idea.

I guess we're in agreement a little, we just have different definitions of Satanism. I'd say Leviathan has a place in Satanic workings based on my study of LHP philosophy. But then again, I have Pagan leanings so if I practiced Satanism, I would personally use multiple deities. I suppose that's why I lean torwards Luciferianism.

Actually a lot of my early work as a Satanist (but not now) centered around Leviathan, although my understanding was different. I viewed the Abyss more as the Universe and Leviathan swimming in the void of outer space. I had that symbolism with no knowledge of anything the Temple of Set or anyone else wrote on the matter. Just made sense symbolically from what I knew of Leviathan in relation to the mythos of the time.

I mean, I couldn't literally believe he lived beyond the ocean under a flat earth but the idea of this giant serpent of all potential creation and uncreation swimming in black waters of ineffable vast emptiness really spoke to me. So Leviathan became in my mind the manifestation of natural phenomena on a large scale. I had a whole chart of the system at the time lol.

But ya if you're coming at it from a 'chaos as pre-creation' angle it makes sense. It's been said that Leviathan was the only thing that existed before this creation itself (in it's own mythos). The infinite potential.

I have no idea what Puranic and Nonpuranic means. Do you mind giving me a run down on the dual vs nondaul intepretations? Hinduism has always been my weak spot in religious studies. It's really intimidating and I haven't had good experiences when praciting personally. I'd love to know more.

Welp. This is a can of worms. I'll try to give a TL:DR answer as to it for Shaivism.

*Pulls out two charts*

https://i.imgur.com/RGYQm1h.jpg

This first one is technically (from what I've been told) not the most accurate but it will suffice.

This is more like a lineage chart, on the right isn't all Tantra such as the Lingayat. I dont know much about that entire branch though. Everything below Mantramagra is Tantra. Shaiva Siddhanta is the normative dualistic tantra of Shaivism. Siddhanta means something like "established orthodoxy" IMO but more literally is like "settled doctrine, canonical".

Trika which claims to supersede Siddhanta refers to triads of which the individual is often one (such as Anu). Kaula is a subschool where Aham (heart) is the focus of the path and IMO the one most like modern Satanism (eerily so). This is probably where the chart is kind of off. The Kapalikas were the precursors to Trika but technically things like Kaula, should be under Trika which itself should be under the Kapalika. There are other noteworthy schools of Trika not shown here but they aren't relevant at the moment.

Second chart for some practicality:

https://i.imgur.com/gpUIPgK.jpg

To the far left is in respect to how much it respects Vedic values and to the right how much it doesn't. Essentially the further right you go on the chart the more Left Hand Path it becomes although it isn't actually considered LHP until it hits the Bhairava Tantras. Even Shaiva Siddhanta is considered Daksinacara (Right Hand Path). The Vijnana Bhairava Tantras are one of the important texts to Trika and IIRC one of the oldest.

The main difference you will see, at least in Tantra between dualism and nondualism is that essentially the dualists seek to enlighten/liberate through grace and devotion to realize the true nature of the self (IIRC as a Shiva, which is distinct from Shiva proper) where as the nondualists say nah we want to realize ourselves as Shiva through ourselves. This isn't some kind of destruction of the self though; the nondual nature of becoming Shiva itself is both nondual and individuated (reconciling the dualism). So in that sense it's not truly monist, just simply nondual. If there are major nondual Tantra Shaiva sects not derived from the Kapalikas I don't know of it.

Part of this difference and also of note the RHP and LHP divide between the Shiava dualists and Shiava nondualists is likely because Shaiva Siddhanta is basically a mix of the Agamas and Vedas, whereas Trika was more influenced by Shakta (another Hindu religion often can be Tantric) and Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhism) so a lot more potential LHP influence. That and Trika is already getting things like the aforementioned Kapalikas for even more LHP Tantra influence. That said the most popular school of Trika, Spanda seems to at least be RHPish but it's not explicitly so SFAIK unlike Siddhanta. Despite that most of the Trika subschools and even it's very roots are in the Left Hand Path.

I hope that is a good enough quick and dirty overview :)

EDIT: I forgot to address what Puranic means but basically it means related to the Puranas ("old") texts. The Puranas could be considered to be henotheistic. It isn't an area I'm very read in although I've read some of the Shiva Purana before. In either case it's considered nondual and really different from Tantra. I'm not even sure where to start on explaining the differences when I don't know as much about it but it probably isn't relevant to us not being overly mystical and quite RHP :)
« Last Edit: December 09, 2017, 02:10:05 am by Kapalika »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

Xepera maSet

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2017, 09:55:27 pm »
Well, the Cosmic Order is both a good and bad thing. If there was nothing but Chaos then even Isolate Intelligence could not exist. Self-Existence requires something to define the Self against.

In his article from The Imperishable Star v. III, @Setamorphosis writes: "Now, Acosmic Satanism is a type of Satanism which is about transcending the imposing mechanics of the universe, and developing a symbiotic relationship with the acausal void outside of it... The goal of an Acosmic Satanist, as mentioned briefly, is to transcend our material universe and develop a symbiotic relationship with the Chaos – to literally become a manifestation of Chaos, which has the same properties as Chaos, except it’s conscious and can act according to its own Will."

To me this seems to both respect certain aspects of Cosmic Order, but using them to one's own ends. Anti-Cosmic does not seem to necessarily imply Pro-Chaos.
AKA: Three Scarabs, 1137


The stars don't tell the future, Donkey.
They tell stories.
- Shrek

Kapalika

Re: Shouldn't Satanism be pro-cosmic?
« Reply #51 on: December 17, 2017, 06:09:31 pm »
Well, the Cosmic Order is both a good and bad thing. If there was nothing but Chaos then even Isolate Intelligence could not exist. Self-Existence requires something to define the Self against.

In his article from The Imperishable Star v. III, @Setamorphosis writes: "Now, Acosmic Satanism is a type of Satanism which is about transcending the imposing mechanics of the universe, and developing a symbiotic relationship with the acausal void outside of it... The goal of an Acosmic Satanist, as mentioned briefly, is to transcend our material universe and develop a symbiotic relationship with the Chaos – to literally become a manifestation of Chaos, which has the same properties as Chaos, except it’s conscious and can act according to its own Will."

To me this seems to both respect certain aspects of Cosmic Order, but using them to one's own ends. Anti-Cosmic does not seem to necessarily imply Pro-Chaos.

I think, both when I originally read the article and even now two weeks later, that I'm not understanding what is supposed to be chaos or what its attributes are. Nor do I understand what the noncausal realm is supposed to be in a literal sense.

There was also a section where he did try to make a distinction between anti-cosmic Satanism, and while I understood he was going for a distinction of ethics it didn't make a distinction of metaphysics I was hoping for. Perhaps for those who lean acosmic, the metaphysical aspects matter less and practice and final outcome matter more and so the article was focused on that aspect much more so. Not to say anything is wrong with that, it's very common within Satanism as well as yoga or tantra and a bunch of other stuff too. I just happen to not lean that way more often than not.

Overall, based on the responses here and the article I can see similarities with my own beliefs (surprisingly more than I thought) but I'm not sure how far that will take me in understanding the metaphysical side, as anything I can look into as an analog in my system, no matter how "outside" is cosmic by virtue of existing (even for things outside of the influence of a "First Cause").
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 07:01:30 pm by pi_ramesses »
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Trika via Vāmācāra

"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo