Characteristics of Satanism

[Kuroyagi]

What characterizes Satanism for you? Is it freedom, self-reliance etc...what do you consider as genuinely satanic? Would one need to know the explicit "satanic" literature, like La Vey etc to be knowledgable of a satanic philosophy, or is that unimportant?

I'm asking this cause I am somewhat at a loss when it comes to the definition of this philosophy...I have seen many incredible idiots proclaiming it, and then a few very sound philosophers as well...so what are your criteria for it?

[m1thr0s]

that's pretty damn psychic of you K...I've been thinking a lot about this just in the past day or so especially.

I personally feel like one of the biggest problems we are dealing with in defining Satanism as a formal philosophy is that it is currently in heavy transitional mode. There seems to be a very powerful undercurrent of subliminal themes that sort of combine to make up its total but I do not feel as though any of this has found its way to an adequate spokesman at any time that I know of. We are left, instead, with a contradictory patchwork of ideas and expressions that nevertheless seem to almost hang together despite their half-hazardous condition.

Freedom? sure. Self-Reliance? uh-huh. Also autotheistic, autodeistic, suitheistic predispositions. Also oppositional thinking generally as well as a general defense of Man's inherent animal nature. The list goes on and it's not an unimpressive list. Too many times it would seem as though Satanism finds its most striking definitions by virtue of what it is not...confusing things that much further.

I have arrived at a precarious sort of stalemate with respect to Satanism personally. I would have to guess that maybe 999 times out of 1000 I find Satanists to be among the most reprehensible idiots I have ever encountered. Curious for a people who uphold *stupidity* as a cardinal sin. At the same time I remain convinced that Satanism is...at its heart...the purest form of Philosophy itself. It is the *Thou Art That* placed in an unrelentingly self-assertive modality...relying upon nothing but the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth to achieve its aims.

Its aims? Self-evident really, built upon the Laws of Necessity themselves. IFF "there is no god but man", we would appear to have a bit of a logistical discrepancy on our hands. Even if we accept the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that others have achieved all of this before, they appear to have neglected to leave an effective trail of breadcrumbs in their wakes. One way or another we are left with the task of apprehending our destinies from scratch and securing them virginally...or else just forget the whole damn thing and go back to sleep I think. How many times the latter option would seem the wiser if we didn't keep waking up to the same old *stupid* dream.

In a very pragmatic sense, this general unwillingness to deify the spiritual masters of antiquity (or else living among us) is one of the hallmarks of the Satanic Mindset. Knowing human nature for what it is...knowing how easily people will slide into believing the ridiculous just to comfort themselves...someone has to be willing to call bullshit on the whole stinking gambit...to say look...the fact of the matter is...they have all flat failed. Not one human being in the whole history of the human race has ever realized these godlike ambitions yet! There may, in fact, be a very good reason for this...we may be a whole lot more dependant upon each other than we care to admit. But either way...someone has to be willing to to play that card or it simply won't get played. The cost to us as a race could be disastrous if that position should happen to be correct.

So I believe that Satanism is irrevokably committed to the matter of Estate and that this is its first and last order of business at all times really. Until we can define and secure that Estate directly and deliberately, we have no idea who the f*ck we really are or where the f*ck we are actually going.

And this kind of godhead simply will not do. It is neither omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent. Maybe that's all Satanism really is at the end of the day...this willingness to call a spade a spade and take whatever personal actions might be implied by this without any special regard to the odds. This is called acting on Pure Principle, and there are damn few human beings who can actually pull it off.

m1thr0s

[Kuroyagi]

A damn good outline m1thr0s!, I agree with most points and thereby i would be practically a Satanist myself.

I have two things that make me..think and maybe you can help me out here a bit.

One is my intuitive dislike of nearly all explicit satanist writings like said La Vey. I hope you dont think Im too arrogant when I say that I have a very good confidence in my ability to judge if a text is worthy of study at a mere glance, but this sort of intuition has never failed me so Im sticking with it. Now the problem is that I have this sense of "neednt bother" when it comes to these texts. Could you (or anyone else) give me your opinion on that- maybe recommend one text that I could try out? (or say whether it is worth of reading or not)?

The second point is also minor actually. It is about the "satanic" aesthetic. I myself would say that satanism itself isnt restricted to a certain aesthetic exterior at all, yet I see many who play the gory sex and violence theme and call that satanic. Now what I dont like about this is not the art/manifestattion itself but rather the fact that people use it for self gratification, to "shock", or in order to be "cool", and dont even care about relating genuinely to the topic of "violence" or "cruelty" with artistic means; they simply get a kick out of it and love being despised or to shock respectively to impress others by it. But in my view this shouldnt even bother one, its dishonest with oneself cause if one is lucky enough not to have experienced those extreme circs then one should be glad and make art about other things- its about honesty to oneself which is very hard but very rewarding.

On the other hand I see America fighting one war after the other without any soldiers who create poetry or art about their real experiences of war or violence at all. This bothers me cause this means that they have no voice, no means of integrating their traumas and consolidating them. cause this is only possible with art (journalism is also important but can only accentuate and make public certain problems but doesnt have this carthartic function at all)...this is just an example. Yet on the other hand people like Marilyn Mason play with this pseudo cruel theme and think that they are so cool and whatnot. But real suppression and violence is more sneaky it is more matter of factly, victims are ashamed of themselves, victims never want any sympathy or compassion, they only want to be considered as normal, people can be strong by being quiet, by lying by cheating so to protect themselves or their loved ones, too.

Sorry this was a bit wordy hope you can see what I mean, but thats what I dont like about this modern "aesthetic" vileness: it is its fakeness, its affectation of "immoral" things instead of facing real nature which is both more normal/uncaring and yet much more radical than those childish poseurs could ever imagine.

[m1thr0s]

To the best of my knowledge it would be completely reckless to regard Anton LaVey as any kind of philosophical genius, whereas I honestly believe that Satanism can only be effectively upheld by legitimate genius itself.

So what the hell was he? He was an opportunist and a showman, chiefly...a marketing man moreover who was handed an opportunity no one else was willing to touch...realized he really had nothing to lose, potentially everything to gain...and went for it. That is my assessment of his work for what it's worth and it doesn't mean that he didn't have some intelligent things to say, because he did. But it means that he himself was not actually capable of manifesting the standards he was putting forth as "true Satanism".

What we are left with are a lot of internal contradictions. On the one hand LaVey was simply responding to a *current* that was already there manifesting itself abundantly while on the other he was not personally able to hone that current as well as it should have been honed. There are huge holes in his thinking and those of us who come along in his wake are going to have to plug those holes. One of these is the tantric connection. LaVey was all but oblivious to the tantric side of Satanism which means that we are left with a lot of useless soundbites and almost nothing denoting a serious methodology of any kind. Again the matter of estate has been put at risk through this devastating omission. Is Satanism about *self-deification* or *self-aggrandizement*? LaVey himself hardly seems to know the difference.

So I think that the weaknesses you have noted are real. Satanism has a little growing up to do yet. It will need to become more global in its whole outlook to achieve the maturity required to stand the test of time. It will need to become less enamored with appearances and more invested in actual substance or it will simply remain a graffitti art form that no one should be taking especially seriously...genius least of all.

If I have thrown in with Satanism it is only because I am good at spotting diamonds in the rough. My work in Abrahadabra should be adequate to validate this. I am often able to see a value in things that others may have missed...or else identified completely ass-backwardly. But I have no real Satanic affiliations and I don't go looking for Satanic friends or social supports. I don't even discuss it much anymore, though I am always willing to discuss it up to a point. Moreover, I have committed myself to what I believe the correct Satanic objectives should be and am asserting that technology & methodology without concerning myself with Satanism on any kind of organizational level. No one has to be a Satanist to benefit from these things at all, though I have often seen that people of a natural Satanic Mindset are among the first to recognize their worth. Perhaps this is what Satanism really should be attending to anyway...do we really need another stupid-ass religion?

m1thr0s

[m1thr0s]

I've been studying the word "contradiction" as it pertains to Satan (and Satanism) and have arrived at some interesting insights.

One of the questions for linguists with regards to the word Satan is that it is one of the only words not translated from its original Hebrew "ha-ShTN" which is known to be a phrase indicating "adversary" or "the adversary" most correctly. The fact that this word has been left conspicously untranslated is in itself a contradiction. Why have they not translated this phrase? Why have they elected to leave it in place, yet still assigned the English "Satan" spelling and pronunciation?

There really can be only one reasonable explanation: right down the line, those responsible for producing these translations had their own agenda with respect to this particular phrase, or subsequent term. That agenda was one of creating a central character that could be accused of typlifying absolute evil itself...something that would be lost if we went with the correct translation, since according to the various ways in which it occurs in its original contexts, it would clearly be seen to be a fluid term corresponding to no one individual at all.

Satanism itself seems to me to have seized upon this whole spirit of contradiction as a kind of rallying cry against tyranny. In some ways, to call oneself a Satanist is to call oneself a Contradictionist, save only that the latter term has no clear definition. Even though the former term has none either, it nevertheless posesses an intuitive definition that works for a growing number of people.

It should be no surprize that Satanism seems rife with internal contradictions in this case...that is basically what it appears to be fashioned upon, at least at the level of linguistics!

m1thr0s

[Kuroyagi]

There really can be only one reasonable explanation: right down the line, those responsible for producing these translations had their own agenda with respect to this particular phrase, or subsequent term. That agenda was one of creating a central character that could be accused of typlifying absolute evil itself...
Yes good point. This could also be due to the strong manichaenan influence on the early chruch fathers like Augustin who was a pagan philosopher a manichaenan a rhetor, enjoyed "luculic" pleasures and was simply a dyed in the wool heretic before he picked up Xtianity and basically laid the foundations of its "modern" form.
The most striking principle of Manichaean theology is its dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism). Mani postulated two natures that existed from the beginning: light and darkness. The realm of light lived in peace, while the realm of darkness was in constant conflict with itself. The universe is the temporary result of an attack from the realm of darkness on the realm of light, and was created by the Living Spirit, an emanation of the light realm, out of the mixture of light and darkness.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
His revered mother, Monica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_of_Hippo),[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#_note-4) was a Berber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people) and a devout Catholic, and his father, Patricius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricius), a pagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism). Although raised as a Catholic, Augustine left the Church to follow the controversial Manichaean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism) religion, much to the despair of his mother. As a youth Augustine lived a hedonistic lifestyle for a time and, in Carthage, he developed a relationship with a young woman who would be his concubine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubine) for over fifteen years. During this period he had a son, Adeodatus,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#_note-5) with the young woman. His education and early career was in philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) and rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric), the art of persuasion and public speaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

I myself somehow see some typical "prophetic" qualities in Augustins work that even remind me of AC...

You know to tell the truth I'm glad that one can disucss this here freely, imagine the outbreak at most "satanist" boards if xtianity is merely mentioned. But the thing about being contradictive is good, especially if we see it in a bigger frame than merely the religious one, more as a deeply human choice- also in connection with "doubt" as I said elsewhere.

And I also think that if we redefine and lay down the principles of satanism in the modern context it doesnt mean much where the word came from anyway- we simply collect some streaks, some very archaic ones and some newly refreshed by modern developments like genetics into this term; we can go transhuman and use what was always there like mystic teachings the I ching and combine it with genetics and your system and get inspired by ancient gods and modern moralistic philosophers like Pascal or whatever. To say satanism as we see it is Hebrew or something like that would be as nonsensical as saying "nihilism" is an antique Roman invention because "nihil" is the Latin word for "nothing"...there can be hints and connections but one neednt become oneself lulled in by the theologians who just love to nitpick and quarrel about any tiniest dogmatic protion of their beloved scriptures. So what I say, lets read the text- bible satanic ore not, maybe both are crap, anyway(?)- and pick out what we like...

[m1thr0s]

But the thing about being contradictive is good, especially if we see it in a bigger frame than merely the religious one, more as a deeply human choice- also in connection with "doubt" as I said elsewhere.
oh hell yes...xst...just being human is a contradiction in terms...what the hell is that? We need only examine virtually every other life form on earth to get a clue what a freak of nature we really are...So *contradictionism* definitely has its place and higher calling and so on...I suspect that in the end it will yield *context specialists* unlike anything we have ever seen before.

And I also think that if we redefine and lay down the principles of satanism in the modern context it doesnt mean much where the word came from anyway- we simply collect some streaks, some very archaic ones and some newly refreshed by modern developments like genetics into this term; we can go transhuman and use what was always there like mystic teachings the I ching and combine it with genetics and your system and get inspired by ancient gods and modern moralistic philosophers like Pascal or whatever. To say satanism as we see it is Hebrew or something like that would be as nonsensical as saying "nihilism" is an antique Roman invention because "nihil" is the Latin word for "nothing"...there can be hints and connections but one neednt become oneself lulled in by the theologians who just love to nitpick and quarrel about any tiniest dogmatic protion of their beloved scriptures. So what I say, lets read the text- bible satanic ore not, maybe both are crap, anyway(?)- and pick out what we like...well met...start to finish, I agree...

m1thr0s

[Frater CaO]

Been a while..

Anyways, some few definitions that comes to mind before i read through the thread more thoroughly is that its about self-reliance and all that but also the symbolism and worship of Satan. Allthough, when we go further with this Satan worship we are soon crossing the border to terminology like Luciferianism etc.
Personally, I dont think you need to study any specific writings commonly attributet with satanism, like Lavey or whatever.
I have only read some very brief things from lavey and I thought most if not all of it were complete crap so I flushed it at sight more or less.
I kind of stumbled in on satanism through music and I am still not sure if Id like to even call myself a Satanist or anything else either for that matter..
Well, gotta go fetch some new books thats arrived. Ill get back and read through this thread later.

[m1thr0s]

Invariably the people I have met who have been the most affected by LaVey's writings have also been the least aware of the classics of world religious, metaphysical, mystical and philosophical thought. So he seems to me to be one of those *gateway* writers...for me it may have been Eckankar...for others Astral Projection etc...there's really just not enough there to be a self-contained philosophy.

The more you acquire of the world's actual store of recorded knowledge, the less impressed you will be by Anton LaVey in general...although it has to be said that he played a very gutsy game that might very easily have got him blown to smitherines if he hadn't played it right to the hilt, showman antics and all... I do admire courage - I'm just not willing to call it something it is not.

m1thr0s

[deviadah]

What characterizes Satanism for you?
The short answer: Satanism is Religious Anarchy!
The long answer: Everything m1thr0s has written (nothing much to add to it... good job)!

:cool:

[deviadah]

Invariably the people I have met who have been the most affected by LaVey's writings have also been the least aware of the classics of world religious, metaphysical, mystical and philosophical thought...
I was reading through my old copy of the Satanic Bible, looking for something unrelated, and found the reasons things are like they are concerning those inspired by LaVey.

It states, in the preface, that the Satanic Bible was

...written because, with very few expectations, every tract and paper, every secret grimoire, all the great works on the subject of magic, are nothing more than sanctimonius fraud - guilt-ridden ramblings and esoteric gibberish by chronicles of magical lore unable or unwilling to present an objective view on the subject. Writer after writer, in efforts to state the principles of white and black magic, has succeeded instead in clouding the entire issue so badly that the would-be student of sorcery winds up stupidly pushing a planchette over a Ouija board, standing inside a pentagram waiting for a demon to present itself, limply tossing I-Ching yarrow stalks like so many stale pretzels, shuffling pasteboards to foretell a future which has lost any meaning, attending seminars guaranteed to flatten his ego - while doing the same to his wallet - and in general making a blithering fool of himself in the eyes of those who know!

Although I agree with a lot in the above quote it can also be misunderstood by those that just discovers LaVey resulting in accepting only His gnosis and ignoring all others.

Just a theory...

:cool:

[Naomi]

Good quote there though, I like it...

[m1thr0s]

Railing against superficiality is almost always a good thing, but how many people will come along and look at that comment and immediately conclude that the I Ching must be for idiots?

Probably a great many. especially since when they look around they will tend to find the vast majority of contemporary I Ching enthusiasts carrying on like a bunch of mindless idiots much as he describes.

So unless you have studied into the matter in greater depth than this you will have no way to know that all he has really done here is make himself look knowledgeable at the expense of something much more intelligent than he himself has any useful understanding of.

That's the problem with cheap philosophy, and Lavey is a master of cheap philosophy. It's easy to make anything look dumb by pointing only to its weakest links. One wouldn't need to be very bright to employ the same tactic against Satanism with phenomenal results.

All proving nothing and providing nothing very useful....

That is ultimately LaVey's great downfall...he never really defines much of anything successful but only cashes in on dissing other people's failures. Some will find a strained defense in this somehow by pointing to his time or other factors. To me it really doesn't matter. If you don't ever evolve beyond LaVey you'll be forever stuck in a kind of philosophical limbo.

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Naturally I assumed you would pick up on that m1thr0s (I did) but he also mentions the ouija board and the pentagram, I think that perhaps he could have worded it in a way that is more empowering and adding as an afterthought that people misuse these powerful tools because they are ignorant.

See this is why I never read Lavey, he wasn't very good with words in my opinion, he just had a good grasp of sensation and stirred up enthusiasm in restless individuals (mostly young people who are easily impressed by just about anything if it's rebellious) I didn't even have to flip through his books to know this I just watched his enthusiasts and read a few blurbs here and there...

[m1thr0s]

well...it was a gutsy move and I give him that hands down. I'm not at all averse to giving credit where it's due. But a philosophical giant he ain't and the problem with that is that Satanism at its best is geared to philosophical giants.

It's simply not well suited to sub-literate anything...

m1thr0s

[frater luciferi]

levay definately is not deep in any sense of the word..but i like him still. one of my prize possesions is a documentary made about him and the "black house" in san francisco..and while he might not really convey true depth in his philosophy , he was pretty good at pushing an evelope that had hardly even been pushed in mediocre america..a true carnie and not really anything else for the most part..putting on a good sideshow for the humble masses..i still dig on his "anti-religion" and i really like how he pushed for sexual liberation and liberation from morality of the judeo-christian kind.

it may not have been anything entirely unique or new in any sense but at least levay did his own thing..the depth in satanism came later..so at least i guess we should give credit to levay for forging some new territory...abiet none that crowely had not already taken in the century prior...but in a way he DID manage to infect the mass concious with the satanic ideam...and those seeds got the real "True" satanists started and such.. in a lot of ways i like how the levayan philopshy is more basic..somtimes simple is good.

[m1thr0s]

yeah...I can appreciate that. I have come to recognize certain things over time about my own path in general. You wouldn't expect everybody to have an intimate grasp of nuclear physics just because they happen to be living in a nuclear nuthouse. You could even argue that all such persons are ethically obliged to know this kind of thing as a consequence of the world they inhabit but it's simply not practical to expect it.

So the same thing applies to certain more advanced areas of occult knowledge as well. It's just something you kind of have to get used to. LaVey was a showman and he was actually pretty damn funny and at the same time he was obviously serious about Satanism itself. I don't think he had a clue in hell where it was going but it's not really all that important that he did. So I draw the line at the idea of him being some sort of philosophical genius or something because he simply was no such thing but he was pointed in the right direction and he made a number of very correct moves.

I think what happens is that you are left having to resolve all your heavy shit yourself with this cat...he's not going to help you sort it out but if you happen to be somebody he recognizes as a "born satanist", he will at least light a sparkler on your behalf and maybe do a silly little satan-dance...and sometimes that's just as good as it gets.

m1thr0s

[frater luciferi]

i mean a similar transition in a way was the origins of black metal---i mean the first black metal was a almost comical uber satanic version of motley crue--ie venom(even though i love venom) which inspired a lot of peole in the next generation to go possibly a hell of a lot farther ie mayhem , burzum etc. etc. where i went from pure carnie showmanship and props to actual applied satanic philosophy..i mean sure a lot of kids back in the day were into "shout at the devil" and liked the whole wierdness of motley crue but who the hell would think it would end up with church burning and the extremes that some crazy norwegians would take it?

[deviadah]

Yeah, it's like the attire of the punks were first, here in Sweden at least, popularized by the upper middle class who were hardly punk other than in the sense of fashion!

:laugh:

[m1thr0s]

one of the things I find amusing is that most xian fundamentalist groups I have read that try to define the roots of satanism in modern times begin with Eliphas Levi! Almost nobody buys into the idea that anything really began with LaVey other than the incorporation of Satanism as a card-carrying religion.

The Catholic church itself would paint us an entirely different picture since they believe Satanism has been with us from the beginning. Since they were the ones who vilified Satan to begin with, perhaps they would know.

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Simply more leverage - it's no one person's doing. I read just now that Crowley thought he was the reincarnation of Levi because he was born the year he died or something.

[frater luciferi]

Yeah, it's like the attire of the punks were first, here in Sweden at least, popularized by the upper middle class who were hardly punk other than in the sense of fashion!

:laugh:

where im from we call em fashion punks...

[EtuMalku]

I have always seen Satanism (old, modern, theistic, Setianistic etc.) as a very superego'd misguided Luciferianism. I have found the more intelligent followings such as the Golden Dawn, Thelema etc. tend to separate themselves from any Satanic association. Luciferianism on the other hand I do understand and believe in.

[m1thr0s]

Satanism is not a philosophy that really requires a great deal of lip service. If fools make a mess of it, what else is new? So I think it's true that there are a lot more Satanists out there than you might think...just going about their lives and perfecting those things they do best etc...

I only really discuss it if it comes up anymore. My views on Satanism have always been way too demanding for most Satanists. Like reading and writing for instance...I really insist on a certain degree of literacy and so I lose maybe 75% of 'em right there...pretty amusing to watch actually...

There are few technical reasons for maintaining a distinction between Luciferiansim and Satanism although in most cases I think it's just that Luciferians don't want to catch whatever disease it is that most Satanists seem to have... :laugh:

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

No I would call myself a Satanist, never a Luciferian.

[EtuMalku]

No I would call myself a Satanist, never a Luciferian.
Naomi,
Would you elaborate on your statement please?

[Anibis]

Closest I come to either is Santana-ism; best exemplified by the Abraxas album.... But in all truth, I am a Pantheist, so I suppose Pan is another one of the gods that got lumped into the Christian notion of the devil, although for me, the accuser role is less the point, and more of a side effect of simply aknowledging the present-ness of the real deal (ie Pan, Tao, the All...) It's really more the limitless prescence that is important to me, as well as my own unique articulation of it...
-A-

[Naomi]

Well I am not a light-bearer for one thing, I have a close relationship with darkness and the yin side of the coin so it wouldn't make sense in that regard. The etymology of the word is too young for me - it feels too Christianized and I like the sanskrit sat-tan association more.

I also like to go to older and deeper gods than Lucifer for inspiration, Ningishzidda for example is my latest fling and that one is very Satanic as illustrated in this dialogue here. (http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=325)

The Hebrew word is also very appealing to me "the adversary" is an station I feel I fit very well and I enjoy that connotation...

I like light-bearers too though I just don't fit in with that crowd as a self proclaimed "light-bearer" or Luciferian...my way of working is much different and far less direct.

[EtuMalku]

The symbolism of the Serpent is more aligned with Lucifer than Satan as the Serpent of Egypt known as Wadjet, which crowned the Sun God Ra (3000 B.C.). As the Ouroborus it represented the beginning and end of time, and symbolized fertility. When worn on the head of Egyptian priests and priestesses the serpent is Uraeus and was thought to possess magical powers since Egyptians believed it to be the magical eye of the god Horus.
All analogous to the bringing of Divine knowledge, just as the Biblical serpent had done. The great Demon Apophis, enemy of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, whose attacks on the sun god Ra were repelled by serpent spells and weapons cast by the four sons of Horus.
I should point out that it was Dante's Inferno that sensationalized the Satan / Lucifer persona.

[Naomi]

The Uraeus or the goddess Wadjet have nothing to do with Satanism as far as I know. AS protectors of royalty they are a local power designed to uphold thrones, something Satanism does not take part in as a general rule.

Ningishzidda's history goes back in recorded history 7000 years, this is what I meant by older. His following was already well established then in Sumer, in the artist city of Lagash.

Ningishzidda, or as I like to call him, Ng, is relevant to Satanism especially because he taps into the spiritual vein of absolute unbridled power and outer intelligence beyond the horizon of our consciousness. This is something no protector god will do. Lucifer is a fine archetype for rebelling against constraints yet for Ningishzidda there are none - the form bends realty beyond the meaning of protection and good and evil, which Lucifer is constrained by in history.

Furthermore, your assessment of Durante Alghiere's work is completely misguided in fact - the inferno was written as a jaded response to the hysteria already surrounding Satan, Hell, demons and Christian righteousness. If you look at the history books you will find that he was persecuted for his beliefs and this despite his outright lies directed at *Satanism which he did for his own good to carry through other more time sensitive messages in his writings. But again, the inferno was a symptom of the attitudes of the time, and did not create the hysteria that was Satanism in 11th century Italy and Europe. Fear of devils and witchcraft was already widespread at this point.

I associate Lucifer directly with Iktomi in my personal cosmology, because his story is very similar.

*which didn't actually exist at the time of his writing

[m1thr0s]

That doesn't really explain why the serpent symbolism should be "more aligned with Lucifer than Satan" though EtuMalku...

nice breakdown on the serpent anyway...

most Satanists aren't terribly concerned about the character of Satan or how this character plays out historically...in part because there actually is no such character per se, which is part of the appeal I think.

"the Satan" is more of a position than a person, which is why Satanists might claim Lucifer as one of their own...Lucifer assumes the "position" of "the Satan"...but so do many others in many other cultural contexts...

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

That doesn't really explain why the serpent symbolism should be "more aligned with Lucifer than Satan" though EtuMalku...

nice breakdown on the serpent anyway...

most Satanists aren't terribly concerned about the character of Satan or how this character plays out historically...in part because there actually is no such character per se, which is part of the appeal I think.

m1thr0s

Sure, and the ambiguity sparks some pretty vivid imaginative accounts, both visual and written, such as the Comedia and DooM in modern times. This character has survived as a prominent figure for thousands of years and is always on the spooky side of most people's imaginations. The ultimate unknown, if you think about that it's pretty potent as it also bears knowledge of the unknown.

Back up to Da'ath...

[m1thr0s]

I think Satanism has a lot more in common with Taoism than it might sometimes care to admit...both philosophies converging on a "principle" which...in itself...cannot ever really be known (edit: defined). It is only possible for it to be inferred. The Satanic "principle" is nevertheless distinguished in certain ways that the principle of the Tao may not be...it is inherently oppositional, juxtapositional etc. It's a very abstract eidetic when you get right down to it.

There does of course exist a theistic branch of Satanic thought that does in fact attempt to define a "character" of some kind, but it's a very difficult task to do this since it has many faces and cannot be pinned down to any one cultural tradition.

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Yes - perfect. This also explains why you either get Satanism or you don't...the Tao is the same way, this is what all of the Zen practices were designed to reveal to practitioners. It reminds me of the solutions I have been looking for in regards to helping people activate the mirrors. It's a very difficult and perplexing riddle with huge rewards that can only be hinted at but never known until they are revealed. But why not?

(Post 4666 #33 is very spooky m1thr0s...)

[m1thr0s]

well I don't completely know the answer to that naomi but some things can only really be understood at the level of sensory experience itself. How many ways could you try to explain a certain fragrance for instance and all those words would be wasted, pending the simple smelling of the fragrance itself...

some things are like this...their essence can only be inferred or experienced...never adequately *defined*...

m1thr0s

[m1thr0s]

I see an enormous potential in Satanism and always have but for the most part its supporters don't very much comprehend the power of what they have got. It will take some time for this to work itself out... It is the stupifying riddle that stuns and silences all would-be "absolutes"...yet is not without a focus of its own, this being the exaltation of so-called *animal nature* in Man to an end result of literal deification, since no other deification would be worth a crap anyway. This is a difficult thing to equilibrate...we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of Universal Animal Nature...sounds kind of sexy though... :cool:

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

I think the problem is the overpowering realm of sensation itself, otherwise known as maya simply does not allow one to easily pick out the important bits that will lead to more rewarding choices in life. Too many Satanists get trapped in false pride and greed or mere emotion. And the Satanist is already juxtapositioned against traditional associations with god and anything divine is seen as pure bile in itself, which is an incorrect assumption born from the misuse of these words and tools by enemies of the freedom loving Satanist. SO in a way it's about seeing through lies of all kinds, that's why I like the title "Lord of Lies" who else but that sort of individual could conquer the ultimate illusion of maya?

[m1thr0s]

yeah...the Lord of Lies...one of my favorites also...

I think we are maybe just barely beginning to come to grips with the fact that Universe itself is one horny muthufucka...religions have mainly sought to suppress this in humankind as it has been viewed as a source of unending trial and tribulation and perhaps it is...but it is also the enginery that keeps this godamm boat afloat whether we like that fact or not.

you gotta think really big though...there's a huge difference between getting your rocks off at the universal level and its rather limpid imitation at the human level. We've got a lot of work to do if we're ever gonna be suitable sexual material on that kind of scale. It'll take enhancements both mental and physical to even remotely make the cut. Major enhancements I think.

So that defines a kind of spirituality nobody is very much willing to tackle...the tantrics may come the closest thus far and Satanism says all the right words but still hasn't come to grips with methodology yet.

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

yeah maybe Satan is God when he needs to get laid...

Going back to the earlier discussion I do like Wadjet and Nekhebet, in fact vultures and cobras are both two of my absolutely most favorite animals ever...I just don't find them very Satanic to be honest, though they do serve a very unique station in nature, recycling and so on, and very closely related to Saivite practices I feel, especially Aghori tantric rites and so forth.

[m1thr0s]

I don't know about god, but this is what happens when a blackhole ejaculates:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c321/deathstar_galaxy_lg_web.mpg

that thing approaching its beam is a small galaxy...munchies, as it were...

m1

[EtuMalku]

Well, alrighty then, what I wrote was from memory and now I see you guys take no prisoners . . lol, excellent! I will do my homework before replying next time, I have an enormous library.

EM

[m1thr0s]

lol...sorry EtuMalku...we seem to have been avoiding this topic around here and a lot of stuff is coming out all at once...

bit of an overload I'm sure...

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Well, alrighty then, what I wrote was from memory and now I see you guys take no prisoners . . lol, excellent! I will do my homework before replying next time, I have an enormous library.

EM


only for cosmic BDSM, captured moons, asteroid belts, stuff like that

[frater luciferi]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/fraterluciferi/Alchemy.gif


in the original hebrew book according to the hebrew interpritation (ie the zohar) the serpent was sent by god--possibly a seraphim-which is hebrew for fiery serpent--um dragon? to test the purity of man. i mean myself as a luciferian kind of embraces dragons simply because the dragon was a benevolant creature in eastern culture..not exactly the barbarous beast that the x-tian meme has tarnished a old symbol of pagan ethos...it was often a depicted in all glory behind the throne of the king..hell beowulf is about kings and their pet dragons..and its old of the oldest storys in the european pagan pantheon.. the dragon was fear for its rage and two dragons of sorts are in the zohar guard the very gates of eden to keep out man because of his inabilitie to truely appreciate it..

i rever oroboros as my symbol for wisdom..and there are many alchemal references to the dragon eating its own tail in the hermetic renassaince. it is a symbol as old as i can find.

[frater luciferi]

im reading aliester crowelys autobiographie right now.,.and hes the far better libertine then i levay could imagine..but levay was way more into jazz and playing organ..only real hobby crowely had was mountaineering... the damn book is like 400 pages? i am not sure if that is an OCD or not but now its somewhere bewteen that book and magick in theory and practice. levay was a true carnie in the sense that he understood the true levity of the libertine nature.

[m1thr0s]

the dragon was fear for its rage and two dragons of sorts are in the zohar guard the very gates of eden to keep out man because of his inabilitie to truely appreciate it..or perhaps rule it...I mean...it's sort of like a combination lock of sorts...master these dragons and the realm is yours etc...

but we needn't rely on any one story or another...dragon lore predates the written word itself...

m1thr0s

[frater luciferi]

have you seen a sumerian dragon before m1 ? they are beautiful creatures..

[m1thr0s]

I actually had a very brief and rather startling encounter with Apsu one evening some many years back now. It was pretty funny when I think back on it...the way he came and went. I had at that time an huge star map from Berkeley that took up an entire wall and on this particular occasion he came waltzing right through the map into my apartment...seemingly only just to make his presence known, kind of gave me the nod as it were, turned right around and waltzed right back through the same map...

I knew it was him for a couple of reasons...one, I had for some reason just composed a little song to him (something i almost never actually do) but more than this it was his gate...if you could have seen him walk...there's only one dragon in the whole universe that has a gate like that and you just sort of know it when you see it...very hard to explain. His skin was very strange, made up of languages or something that moved about as he did move and told a thousand million stories...all moving along his skin...

Anyway...yeah...the really old ones aren't anything like their fairy tale counterparts. These younger dragons are more like mice in actual comparison...

m1thr0s

[Naomi]

Oh yeah I saw him once too but the skin was kind of an afterthought at the time...like "Oh pretty....AAAAAAAAH!"

It's cool how you describe it though I think that is very accurate and it's interesting you can summarize it like that.

[EtuMalku]

Here is some info that will add to our discussion

http://www.plim.org/2Luciferian.htm

[Naomi]

Ananta is endless Panna is Wisdom, it's showing a picture of Shesha Ananta there as an example of wisdom which is incorrect. It is smore appropriate to associate Saraswati with wisdom generally when referencing Vedic lore.

Saraswati happens to be a goddess whom I have a mixed relationship with. Her symbol is the swan and Zeus also takes the form of a swan as we see in the story of Leto/Leda. There is a very ancient association with birds, but especially doves and swans in the middle east with some early versions of Venus in the pre-Islamic middle east. Curiously the tantric application of wisdom is directly associated with females both in Hinduism and Buddhism channels, where the masculine is given th ecounterpart of compassion. This makes sense if you snap out of the human motherhood mindset for a moment to realize the feminine current is actually colder than the masculine (yin/yang)

"When one speaks of Luciferian worship, the very idea comes as both a shock and an enigma for most people. Many people, especially Christians, find it very hard to believe that someone would worship Lucifer, the fallen angel, or Satan. Even non-religious people in our culture find Luciferian worship hard to swallow. Their attitude is primarily shaped by the fact that we live in a largely Judeo-Christian culture where Lucifer is anathema or an abomination being directly opposed to God."

I won't go too deeply into this but I suppose this illustrates a major difference between Luciferians and Satanists. Satanists find the idea of worshipping anything very difficult.



On another note - m1thr0s you know that the Zuni tribe has a direct correlative story that mirrors the story of Enki. Kolowisi.

Anyways Kolowisi is always depicted with a single horn protruding from its forehead and a feathered ruff, sort of a combination of the Quetzelcoatl and Mushushu dragon traits.

And of course Wadjet has a thing protruding from her hat but it has a curl to it and isn't so pointed.

Humans are always associating serpents with rain and lightning - lightning is shaped like a serpent and multiple streaks often resemble a bird. Rains are especially valuable in desert country so this may explain a lot of the serpentine associations with these gods. If we take away the serpent aspects and look at the other symbolisms then maybe we get closer to the fundamental traits of the intelligence. I think the unicorn horn for instance is pretty important - why? When your third eye is really vibrant you can feel the sensation of weight and pressure on the forehead and at certain junctures it feels like there is something coming out of the forehead - as Darin Hamel was confirming in his posts and then it's also mentioned in the Golden Flower text (under the eastern forum)

[Kuroyagi]

I knew it was him for a couple of reasons...one, I had for some reason just composed a little song to him (something i almost never actually do) but more than this it was his gate...if you could have seen him walk...there's only one dragon in the whole universe that has a gate like that and you just sort of know it when you see it...very hard to explain. His skin was very strange, made up of languages or something that moved about as he did move and told a thousand million stories...all moving along his skin...
[....]
m1thr0sA very beautiful description there. I was once very honoured when one friend alikened me to an avatar of Apsu, just as any cultured, educated and powerfully-refined man would have been. ;)

No, but that reminded me very strongly of the bhagavad gita, song 15....unfortunate as it is I have not yet found an English translation that would adhere to my expectations though most simplistic they actually are...cause any translation of those verses babbles about banyan trees and is too much in love with detail...but I want to give it in unrefined form (my own transl.):

Krishna:

The tree that puts its roots to the above
while lowering its branches
and whose leafs are songs:
he who knows it, is wise in all the scriptures.

Above! Below! He sprouts twigs,
whose forms are things of the senses [of perception]
Its roots interconnect in the below
conjoning and uniting the slings and snares of all acts.

Him, who is the beginning and the end of all growth
that is created from unknown sources and fountains,
him you have to strike down with the axe of indifference,
strike him down with all his roots.

And then proceed to the place
where the circle of being is closed,
there you shall take refuge with the spirit of the Source
with him who has brought forth the All.

[....]

[frater luciferi]

thank you for that K.. i will meditate on it.. that TOMe reaks of power..it resonates well with me.

[Naomi]

A very beautiful description there. I was once very honoured when one friend alikened me to an avatar of Apsu, just as any cultured, educated and powerfully-refined man would have been. ;)

No, but that reminded me very strongly of the bhagavad gita, song 15....unfortunate as it is I have not yet found an English translation that would adhere to my expectations though most simplistic they actually are...cause any translation of those verses babbles about banyan trees and is too much in love with detail...but I want to give it in unrefined form (my own transl.):

Krishna:

The tree that puts its roots to the above
while lowering its branches
and whose leafs are songs:
he who knows it, is wise in all the scriptures.

Above! Below! He sprouts twigs,
whose forms are things of the senses [of perception]
Its roots interconnect in the below
conjoning and uniting the slings and snares of all acts.

Him, who is the beginning and the end of all growth
that is created from unknown sources and fountains,
him you have to strike down with the axe of indifference,
strike him down with all his roots.

And then proceed to the place
where the circle of being is closed,
there you shall take refuge with the spirit of the Source
with him who has brought forth the All.

[....]


I'm sorry K it was't because you were cultured and refined, it's because I needed a replacement part and you fit the bill. And you're kind of like him anyways...

Powerful
Poetic
Persuaveish
Married

(married?)

ng says: "also bullish"

Anyways, I had to get into it o make it eal, so, don't worry, you're back above the clouds now. In this universe.

[Kuroyagi]

Thanks glad you liked that frater luciferi, looking at your avatar Im not surprised that it resonated well with you...

Naomi: lol, Im not married (yet?)..."bullish"? Hmm...the only connection apart from Mitras etc that pertains to my present life-style especially is that Im very much centred on earth element, right now (material wealth and splendour+ relaxed/tranquil and laid back) right now but thats not permanent. Im not bad in all the elements I must say, w/o wanting to sound to proud, maybe least proficiency I have in air, still...my focus and concentration is under par at times, BUT: if one knows of a weakness one can strive to correct it I say! :) (of course also bull=fertility god of olde, too, husband to earth mother also a bit of a Dionysian proto-influence perhaps, or white buffalo that is killed in the cave and reborn in spring when the herds appear etc)