THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,alt.satanism
From: satanservice.org@boboroshi (SOD of the CoE)
Subject: Re: Experiential Heaven, NOT Self-Sacrifice
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:45:32 GMT

50030222 VII Hail Satan!

"Krag" :
>>>>> Christ is on the Right-hand of God
>>>>> The Goddess is on the Left-hand of God.

bobo:
>>>> Satan is the Middle path of Self.

"Krag" :
> What does this mean?

self-centered, self-instructed, and self-originating,
the Satanist depends not on the orthodoxy of The Christ
or the heterodoxy of The Goddess, but instead focusses
on the primordial authority of the Self (a projection).
the nonexistence of the Self is unimportant overall.

"Krag" :
>>>So is Buddhism

bobo:
>> no, Buddhism is the Middle Path of the No-Self.
>
> Technically, it's called the middle path/way because 
> it avoids the extremes of acseticism and indulgence

that is one story, though some take this to more
extravagant levels of understanding. nondualism, 
for example, and avoidance of all conceptual extremes.

>> the Buddhism I find convincing is not hung up on 
>> fantasies of some kind of essential spirit or soul,
>
> The 'self' as such in Buddhism, is the 5 skandhas, 
> aggregates of fleeting phenomena that are taken by 
> the unenlightened person to constsutute a central
> personality that 'has' experiences

sounds good. I observe such fleeting and beautiful
manifestations and enjoy them. no need for any kind
of fantasies of spirit or soul here. the Self is,
however, more important, when some kind of crutch
is necessary to move from one place to another. 

>>>>> The Right-hand path ascends to heaven
>>>>> The Left-hand path descends to hell (reincarnation in matter)
>>>>
>>>> The Middle path remains centered on the only reality.
>>>
>>> What's the only reality?
>>
>> the one in which heaven and hell are fictions.
>
> Read what I actually SAID: "HELL is reincarnation in matter"

got it. I'm not sure I'd like to change my response. :>

> No, you may think reincarnation is a fiction, but for 
> those of us with recall of past-lives it is not

fantasy-constructs surrounding the present changing
experience are commonplace, whether this includes a
fantasy about previous lifetimes or future ones.

the present one is the only reality, and those who
need the Left or the Right to balance their biases
are blessed and true (the Satanist disregarding
either illusory Pole).

>>>>> But ultimately, the way down is also the way up,
>>>>> so the two are one.
>>>>
>>>> Being fictions, ascent to heaven and descent to hell are
>>>> both designed to steer the Herd in desired directions.
>
> Not being a Satanist, I can say that the "herd' is a fiction

please do! but I can show you pictures of the Herd! 
will you show me pictures of your metaphorical fictions?
no, and that is why I call them fictions. being unable
to demonstrate their reality, they should be considered
fictions until one is convinced of them. so I do. :>

>>> Well u mean earth (hell) is a fiction thenI diasgree with you.
>>>
>>> 'Heaven' is ametaphor for enlightenment which is
>>> accompliched by sacrificinf self to non-self,
>>> being to non-being
>>
>> as metaphors, these are fictions.
>
> How are metaphors fictions?

there is nothing to accomplish, no one to accomplish it,
nothing to sacrifice, and no one unto whom to do so. it
is a vast emptiness without heaven and without hell, and
this is why heaven and hell are metaphors with valuable
referents but fictional all the same.

they relate to nothing real directly. they may be symbolic
of something, but as symbols, they have little reality 
themselves and are completely dependent upon imagination
to sustain them. that to which they refer is either 
perceived or its truth is unknown and might as well be 
classed as strictly imaginary. how do you know that that
to which they point is real?

without an experience of "enlightenment" (is it accomplished
all at once or gradually?), whatever you wish to call this
becomes a symbol without a referent and thus may be 
unrelated to the real. without pointing to someone who 
has accomplished what you say is possible (have you? if so,
how did you do it and what does it fell like?), why should 
we seriously consider its possibility? without your 
personal timesharing with said individual, why should we 
believe any dogma which masquerades as fact through faith?

>> useful as they may be, taking them literally is an error.
>
> The metaphor is derived from the experience, not vice versa

so heaven is based on feeling happy?

> As such is it is firmly based on the REAL

why does a temporary experience imply the real in some way?
 
>> 'heaven' as a metaphor for enlightenment is just one 
>> more fiction unless you can demonstrate that this 
>> supposed "enlightenment" is real, or has obvious and 
>> confirmable examples.
>
> Who says truth or enlightenment has to be demonstrable 
> to anyone but the enlightened person? 

what enlightened person? where are they? how did you
determine that they were having this experience?

> How would such a demonstartion occur?

shared timespace and the observation of someone's
continuing example of peaceful insight, punctuated 
by moments of ecstatic bliss, apparently. 

>> why any kind of sacrifice of the kind of which you mention
>> (plainly silly!) would be necessary to 'accomplish' what
>> you have failed to describe as more than a metaphor is
>> not immediately apparent. what is the value or advantage
>> of such a sacrifice of self or being,
>
> false self...false being (becoming, time)

where is this? the 5 skhandas? you want to sacrifice the
only experience you have? what for? ignorant bliss?

> No advantage to this self, which must die. 

that it is the only reality is a distinct advantage
for which you do not account. despite the fact that
traditional Buddhists give human life merit points
for its opportunity to 'Get Off the Wheel of Samsara', 
the conservative will not attach this departure to
something fictional, but instead look for it here.
they say there is a man looking for his keys under
the lightpost because the light is better there.
this is the metaphor of heaven and hell.

> No advantage to the true Self, because it already has 
> everything

not being perceived, why not disregard it and consider
it a fiction like the gods and the heavens and hells?
what good are they if they aren't right here right now?

a friend of mine said she liked the philosophy she
ascribed to some hippy that if it didn't manifest 
its results in 5 minutes, what good was it?? I'm
rather inclined to agree regarding the "true Self",
unless you can show it to me. as a projection is
can certainly serve an individual to use it, but
to mistake this as some kind of transcendental
reality seems the height of folly unless you have
some reliable evidence that its existence is 
more than promise and faith.

>> and why should we
>> think that non-self or non-being would be worthies to
>> whom such sacrifice is valuable? this is very murky and
>> sounds like one more panacea encouraging self-destruction.
>>
>> if you're talking about Buddhism, then the only teachings
>> of Buddhism that ever made sense to me were those which
>> included the notion that 'nirvana'
>
> nirvana means 'extinction'

yeah, I guess it is some kind of metaphor for candles
going out or something. does some kind of internal
reservoir of craving-juice dry up with enough zazen?

> It's not translated as enlightenment at all -- 
> not even BADLY 

really? then why is it given as an equivalent for the
term? is nirvana only one *kind* of enlightenment? if
so, what are other kinds?

>> (BADLY translated as
>> 'enlightenment') was *itself* a metaphor for a condition
>> in which all craving for states and objects has become
>> extinguished,
>
> No not a METAPHOR for that condition...that is the fucking 
> condition u asshole!!!

you sure? you've verified its reality somehow? where 
does the metaphorical end and the real begin, exactly?

>> thereby terminating what I would describe
>> as the spiritual dissonance and disruption living usually
>> includes.
>
> What you call living and life, the spiritually aware 
> call death.

damn, then they're pretty st00pid! can I buy it from them?

> It is logical to seek a way out of that dissonace 
> or am I wrong? 

it is not logical to seek a way out of any dissonance 
by terminating what makes experience of everything 
(a body) possible. it is as wrong-headed to fantasize 
continuation through termination as it is to seek 
peace through violence. putting off enlightenment to
tomorrow is insuffient unless there is some reason to
presume that it is a likely point of future arrival.

> Do you seek MORE pain, MORE conflict?

no, I watch the pain and conflict which exist and see
how it may be valuable to enhance or avoid. sometimes
it is extremely important that I enhance and continue
it, at others it is valuable to me to reduce/avoid it.

is the pleasure-pain spectrum polar around pleasure?
is there something which is experiencing that pain/pleasure?
does fantasizing about fictional futures some wish to call 
'the real' assist us any to optimize experience of the 
present moment? what is the motivation of those who 
are promoting fantasies and calling them real?

how can the truth be revealed to us?

blessed beast!

boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/