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

To: thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org
From: tyagi@HOUSEOFKAOS.ABYSS.COM (xiwangmu)
Subject: Satanism, Neosaktas and Thelema (will)
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT)

49960819 AA1

E6!

mu:
#>...LaVey ...appears to contradict your notions that his is merely
#>a kind of 'anti-Christianity':

The Sinister Minister/The Reverend Dr. Corey Bantik (bantik@bga.com):
#While it may or may not be the primum mobilum of LaVey's personal
#philosophy..., the Satanic Bible certainly represents the grandest 
#symbol of theological revolt for those who pursue the psatanic 
#pseudoreligion.... 

#...[as LaVey] is the obvious progenitor and promoter of the 
#faith(lessness), despite claims of historical continuity, that high 
#standard rather falls short.

I think that I already agreed that CoSatanism represents a type of atheism
and materialism, yes.  I'm not aware that he or any CoSatanist made any
sort of claims of continuity (please point these out through quotation).  

certainly there is a mention of the *recurrence* of the 'Satanic' 
phenomenon, and I have even explained this well within this forum several 
times.  perhaps the 'higher' standard to which you are referring was 
abandoned for something a little more down to earth.


LaVey, _The Church of Satan_:
#>$       They continue to work within a primitive framework of Good Vs.
#>$       Evil, taking the part of Evil instead of Good.  They rebel against
#>$       Christianity, but using the same rules.  They may know no more of
#>$       Satanism than what they see on record jackets.  It's a last-ditch
#>$       effort to preserve their belief system."

#Contrast this with the Nine Satanic Statements, eight of which directly
#position themselves as opposite to Christian tendencies.

they do in fact position themselves as opposite Christian tendencies,
and LaVey does adequately explain this in the text I quoted (which you
omitted) as regards relative context.  not only this, but any atheistic
and materialist (rather than spiritualist) religious tradition must in
fact oppose not only Christianity but also a host of other theist
and spiritualist traditions.  this indicates to me that your claim that
the CoSatanists are 'merely anti-Christian' is an over-generalization.


#...His daughter, if I am not mistaken, found good reason to begin a 
#schism in the original antiChurch and has gone on to good work (forgive) 
#in the name of the Satanic church, 

schisms come and go.  the Temple of Set was founded on such a schism.
we can rely upon personal rivalries or degenerative explanations in one
or the other of the participants.  I don't usually find either valuable,
though being aware of them is an advantage.


#while her father drifts off in narcissistic, egotistical sound and fury, 
#signifying the mid-life crisis of a nominal anticelebrity.

given that the religion was founded on narcissistic and egotistical
principles (focussed on the nature of human beings and particularly
on individualism and the worship of the self), I'm unsure that this
is truly a criticism.  

his use of the media and mass-publication appears to be moving along 
well (I'd love to hear you provide examples of how any of my comments 
here are extreme, since I do not make the effort to keep up with his 
appearances, limiting my exposure to media).


#>the 'God' I know (Kali, not Yahweh), did not provide me with any 'laws'.
#>She encourages me to create my own vows (targets, not restrictions) and
#>hitch my will to my intuition (monasticism) and see where this takes me.

#Why, then, the fascination with Satanism? 

to me, Kali is Satan's power.  if you like, you may consider me a 
neosakta, working in a neopagan framework of eclectic syncretism.  
in usenet I made a very wonderful argument for taking off on Crowley's
association/identification of Satan and Siva (along with their 
correspondent social traditions -- Virasaivism/Satanism):

   ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Satanism/Tokus/9607.stnsiva.tn


I'm sure that if we were to begin my psychoanalysis we'd come up with 
all manner of reason, such as my feelings of alienation from society, 
having been raised by a woman who didn't understand the religious and 
tended to consider them unnecessary or deluded.  

there is something wrathful about both of these entities, and, by their 
worshippers (especially within my own spheres), they are often associated 
with nature of some sort and with the protection of the oppressed (in 
Kali's case often a feminist quality, in Satan's one aligned with the self).

I could also make the case (and likely have here) that the Satanic may be
seen as the logical progression of a centuries-old cult of martyrdom,
taking on the labels of the Enemy and facilitating a social psychoanalysis,
including Judaism, Christianity, Witchcraft, and Satanism (one which I
contend is infused with the current of Thelema, and thus my length here).
 

#Not that the two are necessarily terribly incompatible, but it seems 
#that you've a decent working relationship with your divinity.

I don't separate them from one another completely, though I do have a
different relationship with Kali (whom I worship) than with Satan (whom
I serve).  I trust the power of nature more than I do our wildness,
and I think this bears out in my everyday experience.  the wild is at 
times antagonistic to my very being.  without my clothing and shelter 
I am likely to be killed.  within my magick circle I can withstand the
power of nature even at Her greatest ferocity.  my objective is to see
how much of this circle I can remove and to time it properly so as to
effect the Great Work.

I have a wonderful relationship (marriage) with my lovely (and horrible!)
Kali.  Satan is, in my mind at least, not in competition.  several years ago
I remarked that Kali and Yahweh make a pretty good pair.  it is possible
that my religious (Kali emphasizes my personal spirituality, Satan my 
social religious involvement) exploration will yield this pairing, though
persistently I am draw back to the mate of Siva of the Nagas (consummating 
the marriage which I enacted through rite).
 

#Neither is it possible to 'break' the laws of God, really. But a
#distinction must be made between obeying the law and serving it; this is
#the distinction between being a citizen and a statesman.

I do see that the distinction (theoretical) between these is at times 
valuable, yet peaceful protest and counter-cultural grass-roots tactics 
does appear to represent an alternative by which breaking the law (in 
an intentional and therefore magical manner), is also serving that same 
law.  this 'eliminates the middle-man' of the politician who ostensibly 
(and sometimes poorly) represents us.  as Bill said in another context, 
we always have the opportunity to 'vote with our feet', whether this be 
by taking on a new society or by intentionally opposing ours from within
(cf several outstanding martyrs such as M.K.Ghandi and M.L.King Jr.).


#>as regards all these 'wills', I have never separated them out and have no
#>idea as to the value of doing such.  to me the will of human beings, the
#>will of slugs, the will of Kali (subject) and the will of nature (object)
#>amount to the same thing: tao, the way of all.

#I find this distasteful, personally. I spend my energies separating myself
#from the fabric of the universe, trying to carve a niche for what I call my
#self. 

this sounds very much like many Satanists I have met, yes.  I'm unsure that,
having carved such a niche, the separation from the fabric of universe 
continues to be necessary.  perhaps it all relates to stages of development
or to different approaches to similar ends dependent upon our starting points.


#I understand that this is incompatible with the spiritual longing of
#the Eastern mystic traditions toward the annihilation of the ego to the end
#of unity with the universal void.

I am incompatible with many Eastern (and many Western) mystical traditions
*due* to my refusal to attempt an annihilation of my ego and achieving such
a dissolved unity.  we are not as different as all that.  just because these
wills amount to the same thing does not necessarily mean that they are all
harmonious, as represented by the combat currently between the slug-will 
and the human-will.  the human will appears to seriously threaten the slug-
will and I would say 'violate its orbit' through lack of restraint as
regards reproduction and consumption of goods which inspire the destruction
of the slug-home.


#>I think it is a mental struggle, perhaps initiated by philosophic and
#>mystical books like _The Bible_ which may have been promoted to initiate
#>this struggle, driving us to individual stagnation in the face of organized
#>oppression....

#...all we can do is sift and sort and try to find the grains of truth 
#in the intellectual attics of the annals of history, past and present. 

I think there is more to life than the intellect, and we sacrifice our minds
and hearts to false gods (sinning) when we take up any sort of restraining 
doctrines, especially those which pit, as is being well-described within 
this elist, the cosmic will against the individual will, agape against eros,
and other rude and simplistic fabrications.

note that I'm not saying they are such scriptures are devoid of mystery and 
grandeur, only that the way they are used within society (the way they have 
been translated, interpreted, etc., by the 'authorities') feeds this 
struggle rather than helping us to resolve it.  

that is the reason that a 'shift of gears' is so valuable.  our Code Book 
still functions, but the situation of our living has changed, and so the 
Codes have us arriving at different (and potentially deadly) ends.

now whether the Evil Tome is the New Code Book, whether it should be a Setian
Pamphlet, a Latter Day Saint, or other, Replacement, or if we ought be *done
with Code Books altogether* is something every Thelemite may find valuable
to consider.


#If that makes us pawns of the dead thinkers, there is only one choice as 
#I see it: to try to cross the board and become a more potent, empowered, 
#and independent piece.

another alternative might be to ascend *beyond* the role of Piece and
assume the mantle of a Player (Child of the Divine/Magus/etc.).  that
may not necessarily be effected by 'crossing the board/abyss/etc.').
it may require other, even more drastic, methods (we each discover this
for ourselves).


mu:
#>no friends and no enemies have I, only lovers and adversaries (satans).
#>I tell them apart by how they interact with me, understanding their
#>dakini/daemonic nature as helpful to my path.  I took upon myself one
#>Eternal Enemy, yet he is somewhat reluctant and unable to combat with me.
#>his own delusion and error disables him much more effectively than ever I
#>could effect, so I let him alone with but an occasional word of kindness
#>or challenge.

#It is obvious that Mu does not have a firm foothold on the firmament.

I should hope not!  while I may take to the skies occasionally in my more
dazzling moments (like those lovely dakinis (sky-walkers)), I prefer to
plant my feet in the soil of my Mom.  however, your text here only strikes
me as an equivalent to 'I don't understand what you are trying to say' or
'your text sounds crazy to me'.  if either, I hope you'll make this
more plain, so that I might explain, rather than just exchange evaluations
(I've had enough of the latter with Nexist and others and tend to just
bypass it after I've assessed the motivations of the individual).


[your elimination of context curtails the significance of my utterances.
 please be more careful if you wish a meaningful exchange; the following
 text was a response to your mention of some 'God' (though you spelled
 it with a small 'g' it was evident from context you intended something
 more than a spirit or player in the deity-game), beyond this I cannot
 reconstruct, since the archives do not yet include your text and I didn't
 save it -- something which contradicts Br. Bill's claim that omission of
 context can be 'reconstructed' easily using these.]

#>"I am alone: there is no God where I am."

#"If you are afraid of being grabbed by God, don't stand still. And never
#stare at a wall." (...source unknown.) The only time that we are truly 
#alone, is not in time at all, nor in space.

Hadit is the supposed source of the above quote.  perhaps Hadit is not 
in time (Kali) or in space (Nuit), though if I remember my Evil Book,
usually the latter is said to be Hadit's circumference (and he, the
central point, everywhere found).  to me this describes an experiential
relation of consciousness-point to apparent environment.

E6/6/6!

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
mu