ilovefuzz.com

.

Satan is nonexistant. It was always a funny illogical concept to me. Nothing can parry All That Is.

alexa. wrote:Satan is nonexistant. It was always a funny illogical concept to me. Nothing can parry All That Is.

Exactly. Well, not perhaps nonexistent but... simply not as important factor in there as dualistic religious views suggest.

Authades Anti-theoi, the selfwilled antigods are... simply enemies to god or gods. And - most importantly - to their devout worshippers, making their importance mostly social and political, instead of having much magical importance. They simply make a part of the whole. Not even an antithesis, outside their own scene.

All that exists includes, well, all. In hermetic sense, there is no part of the Cosmic whole that it does not contain, so there is no anti-cosmos. Western Esoteric Tradition does certainly favor dualism, unlike the Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Instead, Western Esoteric Tradition promotes pantheism, where gods are everywhere to be found. And in my opinion the the classical studies lead pretty logically to pan-en-theism where all is part of one totality including all imaginable gods that can be identified as separate beings.

Satan, in the dualistic sense, does certainly not have as important role in there as many people imagine. That can clearly be understood from studying Crowley, for example - the notorious black magician that was inspiration to LaVey and Gardner and a dozen others. He's nothing a wannabe badass Devil worshipping teenager expects him to be. First of all, the material isn't easy reading stuff and Crowley particularly is demanding because he calls for actual daily practice. And it's not at all kind on Your self importance and feeling of superiority. Nope.

Hermetic studies and practice are a process. One notice pretty soon that the end product is really You Yourself and that guy doesn't look like the guy who started the process years ago.

ninnghizidda wrote:Crowley was a sweet dude with a lot of great information, but definitely had more ego than enlightenment.

This is misinformation. You should read some stuff on his life like Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley before you post things like this

.

ninnghizidda wrote:Where in the bible does it say that Satan was in the garden of Eden?

You got me on the semantics there. Technically, it was a serpent, but symbolically, it was a force of "evil" that tempted Eve. "Satan," when talking about LaVeyan philosophy, can be call many things, but the idea remains the same that "he/it" is the opposing force to the majority, the rebel. I'm somewhat outspoken to a friend of mine about how the whole Satanic philosophy needs a modernized overhaul. But then again, that's at the heart of it. It's about personal choice and what fulfills the individual, NOT clinging to outdated and useless traditions, unless they work well for you, personally. It is interesting to me that even in this day and age, using the word "satan" amongst a group of atheists can still stir up tensions.

alexa. wrote:Satan is nonexistant. It was always a funny illogical concept to me. Nothing can parry All That Is.

I hope my above statements clear this up. Satan is a thought, an idea, that clearly exists as such in the "all that is." Just like Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Krampus, and whatever else you want to talk about.

If our brains were meant to grasp the totality of the universe, we wouldn't do much, would we? And if we did, it would be for our own personal pleasure, out of the boredom of knowing and experiencing everything. Life is about contrast. You can't be happy unless you know what it feels like not to be happy. You can't be sad unless you know what it feels like to be happy. Both ideas "exist" and are dependent on each other. If you were happy and had all you needed, what would you do besides fulfill your own ego's needs anyway?

gunslinger_burrito wrote:

alexa. wrote:Satan is nonexistant. It was always a funny illogical concept to me. Nothing can parry All That Is.

I hope my above statements clear this up. Satan is a thought, an idea, that clearly exists as such in the "all that is." Just like Mohammed, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Krampus, and whatever else you want to talk about.

If our brains were meant to grasp the totality of the universe, we wouldn't do much, would we? And if we did, it would be for our own personal pleasure, out of the boredom of knowing and experiencing everything. Life is about contrast. You can't be happy unless you know what it feels like not to be happy. You can't be sad unless you know what it feels like to be happy. Both ideas "exist" and are dependent on each other.

Exactly! I recommend Alan Watts - Pain (PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE series) for people who aren't clear on that or want to brush up, or plainly enjoy this kind of thought.

gunslinger_burrito wrote:If you were happy and had all you needed, what would you do besides fulfill your own ego's needs anyway?

Here I have to disagree. It's personal.
Buuut, why would the needs of the ego be 'bad'? They depend on the belief systems we fed the ego, so if you're 'in tune', that kinda resolves.

alexa. wrote:

gunslinger_burrito wrote:If you were happy and had all you needed, what would you do besides fulfill your own ego's needs anyway?

Here I have to disagree. It's personal.
Buuut, why would the needs of the ego be 'bad'? They depend on the belief systems we fed the ego, so if you're 'in tune', that kinda resolves.

The needs of the ego aren't "bad." The very foundation of LaVeyan Satanism is the fulfillment of the ego. I was trying to point out how most folks who want to "become enlightened," merge with the universal consciousness, etc also seem to see egoism as a negative thing. On a note that you may agree with, I do think that the universe must be essentially infinite. And, thinking that, I choose my path because it's fun. But, while the universe is seemingly infinite, it still works a certain way. Objective reality must be met with objective decisions, even if they might not seem objective at first sight.

On a funny note: http://mysticpolitics.com/ebay-bans-sal ... -services/

gunslinger_burrito wrote:

alexa. wrote:

gunslinger_burrito wrote:If you were happy and had all you needed, what would you do besides fulfill your own ego's needs anyway?

Here I have to disagree. It's personal.
Buuut, why would the needs of the ego be 'bad'? They depend on the belief systems we fed the ego, so if you're 'in tune', that kinda resolves.

The needs of the ego aren't "bad." The very foundation of LaVeyan Satanism is the fulfillment of the ego. I was trying to point out how most folks who want to "become enlightened," merge with the universal consciousness, etc also seem to see egoism as a negative thing. On a note that you may agree with, I do think that the universe must be essentially infinite. And, thinking that, I choose my path because it's fun. But, while the universe is seemingly infinite, it still works a certain way. Objective reality must be met with objective decisions, even if they might not seem objective at first sight.

On a funny note: http://mysticpolitics.com/ebay-bans-sal ... -services/

Yeah, it's all about having fun and choosing who you want to be.

Also, lol@ebay, but it is understandable.

ninnghizidda wrote:When you compare the writings of Crowley to the writings of, say, Franz Bardon, it becomes quite clear whose intention it is to show off and whose intention it is to provide information. Same information, but with far less convolution. He knew he was an incredibly clever and intelligent man. Consequently, his writings seem to be dedicated to ensuring everybody else knew that, as well. I'm not attempting to discredit his writings (which are quite good, for the vast majority), but there seems to be this cult of personality surrounding him as though he is the final word in occultism and mysticism, which couldn't be further from the truth. Given the choices he's made throughout his life and his extreme preoccupation with sex, I have a very hard time accepting he possessed an intimate understanding of the teachings he conveyed.

This is a difficult comparison. Bardon wrote in a very clear easy to understand manner very conducive to beginners. Crowley on the other had had a wide knowledge of language and used it, so his writings can be difficult to understand. Crowley also wrote on many subjects and has a HUGE library of material. Just he knew he was clever and wrote above most peoples heads does not mean that he had an over inflated ego and he did not have a firm grasp on what he was writing. Keep in mind a lot of what he was writing was original hand he had to have a firm grasp to put in into words. see "Magick without tears" and "the book of Thoth" both written in the last few years of his life. I am obviously a little bias being a Thelemite. I just don't dig on people Cutting down Crowley when they don't seem to know what they are talking about. still MAD love to all of you!

.

I dont think any Thelemites ( please don't call us Crowley "followers" ) would disagree with you. Crowley had plenty faults but you implied that he did not know what he was doing.

.

no problems. If you have not you should also check out Israel Regardie, specifically A Garden of Pomegranates, The Tree of Life, The Middle Pillar, and The Golden Dawn

this belongs here for sure.....

http://tumblr.hrmtc.com/post/30383230357