Ny länk.

This is one of few posts in my native language and it is written in swedish because it deals with a blog that mainly uses that language.

Jag fann en blogg idag av en medlem av Golden Dawn som jag fann mycket intressant. Jag är som bekant mest inne på vänstra handens väg och dess uttryck och fann då ett långt inlägg som beskrev Thomas Karlssons (Dragon Rouge) syn på saken och sedan inkluderade bloggarens egna tankar. Det intressanta här är att sammanfattningen är mycket kompetent och så obektiv som jag tror att man kan vara och att kritiken på det är mycket väl genomtänkt. Delar av kritiken, ja kanske den största delen, håller jag dessutom med om. Den vänstra handens väg och den högra handens väg är olika vägar mot samma mål. Det var så de uppkom i öst och hur och varför de omtolkades till att ha olika mål vet jag inte. Oftast verkar det dock härstamma från Julius Evolas tolkning. Var Evola fick sin information om detta från vet jag inte.

För min del var tex Satanismen alltid ett uttryck för något som inte var dualistiskt även om jag givetvis inte alltid i mina yngre år uttryckte det på speciellt komplierade metafysiska nivåer. Jag kom tidigt i kontakt med "The Dark Doctrines Crew" och de förespråkade alltid en icke-dualistisk syn presenterat i sataniska termer (jag bryr mig föga om deras politiska åsikter, det var alltid det metafysiska som var intressant för min del). För mig var detta tidigt skillnaden mellan kristendomen och satanismen. Jag är medveten om att det i alra högsta grad finns satanister som är dualister också men för mig var det aldrig så. DD Crews längre texter är att föredra men dessa finns inte på hemsidan (de går att köpa, eller hitta på "inofficiella sidor").

Baphomet ser jag fortfranade som en av de främsta symbolerna för helheten i min värdssyn tillsammans med den Heraklitianska elden. Och även om jag gått ifrån att kalla mig satanist då det är för snävt och samtidigt något jag utvecklats bortom så har det stor betydelse för mig på flera sätt. Mina egna tankar om detta går att finna här, här och här.

Detta mycket längre än jag tänkte. Här är iaf länken till bloggen jag skrev om och texten om den vänstra handens väg i synnerhet. En länk ska läggas till i den vänstra menyn också.

Gyllene Gryningen - Angående den vänstra och den högra handens vägar.

Barack Obama: We Are Not A Christian Nation.

Its very nice and refreshing to hear the president of the United States of America acknowledge that the country he represent isnt in fact a christian nation. Of course all the conservatives and the influential christian right may be terrified. However, as much as they talk about the founding fathers and the constitution did they ever read what they had to say about Christianity? Here are some excerpts that may get some people thinking:

The Founding Fathers on Religion

As the quotes on this page illustrate, the claim that America was founded on Christianity is a myth. Many of the Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War leaders were Deists, and upheld a firm separation of church and state.

Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition

Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.

United States Constitution

The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Article VI, Section 3
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'"

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

Additional quotes from John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."


Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

From Jefferson's biography:
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"

Jefferson's "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom":
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

From Thomas Jefferson's Bible:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Jefferson's Notes on Virginia:
"Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

"Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Additional quote from James Madison:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:
"My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself."

From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:
"...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."


Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 89:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all."

From The Age of Reason:
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

From The Age of Reason:
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."

From The Age of Reason:
"What is it the Bible teaches us? -- rapine, cruelty, and murder."

From The Age of Reason:
"Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches."

From The Age of Reason:
"The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it -- not to terrify but to extirpate."

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
"Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."

The founding fathers were not Christians. . .
Is America a Christian nation?
The U.S. Constitution.

The usefullness of emptiness

Thirty spokes converge upon a single hub,
It is the hole in the center that the use of the cart hinges.
We make a vessel from a lump of clay,
It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it useful.
We make doors and windows for a room,
But it is these empty spaces that make the room livable.
Thus, while the tangible has its advantages,
It is the intangible that makes it useful.

A day in the life of....

This is just something I thought as quite funny.

This morning I started my day by insulting my mother in public, then punched out my father, my brother, and my sister. Then I gathered up all my clothes, sold them to a second-hand store, and with the proceeds bought a used Uzi and 50 rounds of ammunition. Next, I went down to the animal shelter and injected all the dogs with a drug that caused them to go insane and dive into the nearby canal where they all drowned. By this time I was hungry, so I went over to my neighbor's apple orchard and burned it down, because I wanted an orange and there weren't any. On the way home, I stopped at the local steel mill to discuss my philosophy of life with some of the guys. They laughed at me and said to stow it, so I tossed them all into the blast furnace. That night I discovered my son looking at a copy of Playboy. Concerned for his future welfare, I cut off his right hand. What historical character did my activities today most resemble?

Genghis Khan
Charles Manson
Adolph Hitler
Jesus Christ

Church of the Churchless

I just thought I'd add some more attention to this new link I added to a blog called "Church of the Churchless". It contains some very interesting reading and alot of it resonates well with me. Its based on a more eastern approach whch I of course like but it also critiques some of the traditional ideas.

Melek Taus

This post will be written in Swedish because it deals with a swedish radio show.

Idag rapporterade P1's "Människor och Tro" om Yaziderna. En folkgrupp och religion som ofta kopplas samman med ockultism och Satanism av både utövare, experter och motståndare. Mycket missförstådda är de och det här programmet klargör en del av dessa missuppfattningar. Det torde vara klart att dessa människor har en egen religion som inte är egentlig Satanism. Hursomhelst är det mycket intressant. Radioprogrammet kan fungera som en kort introduktion tll ett ämne som är mycket invecklat. Programmets hemsida hittar ni här, och inslaget börjar ca 8 minuter in.

Iconoclasm

I have a document where I copy quotes I come by from around the internet. I just read through some of them and came by this one which I found interesting:

I really think many of you put way too much stock in the word Satanism, and being "Satanic"! Quit being a Satanist and grow yourselves outside the title. The very philosophy of this very base religion is to cast off that which has no value and grow oneself. I submit that the title "Satanism" has no value.

Satanism stagnates because the people who wear it as a title are stagnant in the title. Satanism is personal to each individual, thus if there is nothing new its because we are lazy and have not sought anything new. If you truly have followed an idea to its fullest conclusion, cast it aside for something fuller.

Quit being Satanists. Religious titles are nothing but food for our egos. It is when you can mold yourselves into any idea that you can really begin to expand. I meant what I said: Become Christian for a while! When you can become your own antithesis at will you will be astounded at what you find.

This post was made by someone going by the name of birdland at the 600 club forums. I actually find this very educating and its an approach I naturally take to this myself. Allthough I have to admit it often shows with me wantng to fit into a label or category. Things would be so good if that were to happen. It would truly be the easy way. However it never happens and I know it probably never will.

I often find myself reading things and really liking one or a few ideas and try to justify the rest based on these ideas. Of course it never happens but I always understand that. But every time I pick up a book Im ready to plunge deep into it and I try to be as open as I can and I hope I will find that philosopher or thinker that resonates with me 100%. As I said above that has never ever happened and if it will I might be scared to confront it. How freaky would that be.

I think Im to strong of an individual to ever accept just one perspective without adding my own thoughts and incorporate other ideas and traditions into it.

I just read the newest chapters of Michael Aquinos unfinished history on the Temple of Set. It dealt with the Ronald K. Barrets policies that he introduced to the temple once he became a high priest why it happened and why it chocked the temple and made it lose so many members (from around 200 to just 31 active Setians in 1982). It was an extensive test much based on litterature study from a fixed and set reading list. He might have had good intentions and I understand how he wanted to produce something special of the members that he was the leader of. But as Aquino put it, its hard to herd a group of cats. This approach seemed to me to be about molding everyone in the same way. The initiation wasnt being personal anymore but collective and the importance was with a fixed set of books.

This is the way I feel strangeled by labels. They are to often so exclusive that they become limiting. I just heard a interview with Peter H. Gilmore of the Church of Satan. Despite my main philosophy being more in terms with Anton LaVey than with the Temple of Set I just cant deal with the LaVeyans praise of their dead leader and past accomplishments (and indeed history revisionism as well). Nothing new has come from that organisation in years and years and even Anton wrote just 5 books. Its static and meaningless and afraid to include new influences. In this way I find the Temple of Set way more beneficial and interesting. Although because of my disagreements with their core philosophy I could never be a member of their organisation.

In my first serious search for philosophy end religion I took a stand against Christianity. I was never raised in a very christian way and I wasnt constrained by direct influence of christian rules but I somehow felt the need to break free from its chains. This was the most important charachteristic of Satan as I saw it back then (and still do but in another way - or more evolved way of thinking).

In the past few years the motto of "questioning all things" had gone from questioning Christianity to questioning Satanism. This is what I think the aove quote refers to. By changing the outlook one can learn alot about the label one wears. Now I didnt choos ethe christian perspective since Im familiar with that already. I instead coose to go deeper into eastern metaphysics and I learned more about Satanism that way when I compared the to than I ever did by re-reading The Satanic Bible, The Diabolicon or whatever other book/essay there is on Satanism.

My main problem with Satanism is the claiming of a symbol (or symbols) of change, of chaos in its metaphysical meaning, of becoming but never actually do anything. Well Im sure alot of people are actively seeking to develop but to many are just parroting words written down a long time ago. But that might be the nature of the beast. People are lazy and want comfort and taking the easy way. This is why I can see the logic in this point that the Cavacante la Tigre blog recently described.

What preserves the species.

This is a quote from Friedrich Nietzsches "The Gay Science" (Book 1:4) which I recently started to read:

The strongest and most evil spirits have so far done the most to advance humanity: again and again they relumed the passions that were going to sleep- all ordered society puts the passions to sleep- and they reawakened again and again the the sense of comparison, of contradiction, of the pleasure in what is new, daring, untried; they compelled men to pit opinion against opinion, model against model. Usually by force of arms, by toppling boundary markers, by violating pieties- but also by means of new religions and moralities. In every teacher and preacher of what is new we encounter the same "wickedness" that makes conquerors notorious, even if its expression is subtler and it does not immediately set the muscles in motion, and therefore also does not make one that notorious. What is new, however, is always evil, being that which wants to conquer and overthrow the old boundary markers and the old pieties; and only what is old is good. The good men are in all ages those who dig the old thoughts, digging deep and getting them to bear fruit- the farmers of the spirit. But eventually all land is exploited, and the ploughshare of evil must come again and again.

Matter = fluctuations in the quantum vacuum

I found this interesting article from New Scientist magazine on matter confirmed as fluctuations in the quantum vacuum:

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. Read more...

Quite interesting albeit not surprising for anyone who has followed the development of physics for a while.

On the left hand path.

(Mahakala and the wheel of life)

The subject of what the left hand path really is is a controversial one. There seems to be at least two, maybe three, main theories and based on some of the books I have read on the subject. I will present them here along with references to the books I have used. I will start with the books that deals with the oldest traditions and work my way towards today.

I'd like to start with the most ancient notes on the term left hand path that we probaly have. It is based in what we today would call hinduism and my first point is being made in the book Encountering Kali by Rachel Fell McDermott and Jeffrey J. Kripal. They write that vamachara (left hand path) tantrism is the strife to realize the nature of the world as pervaded by the one shakti (the female force, in this book specifically symbolized by Kali). This is done through rituals of pancatattva with use of the 5 forbidden things in hinduism. This is an antinomian practice that is done to overcome the apparent duality of this world. It affirms radically the way of the phenomenal world.

Next up is the book Aghora - at the Left Hand of God by Robert E. Sveboda. This is the biography of an Aghori and self proclaimed pratitioner of left hand path hinduism. This book explains the left hand path as the perfect symbiosis of right and left. The left hand does however traditionally do the more "inauspicious activities". The left hand path is the faster but more intense and dangerous path towards the goal. And the goal of both the right hand and left hand paths are to realize the universe as atma. This is done, on the left hand path, by the use of traditionally forbidden things in ritual such as corpses, sculls, menstrual blood and the eating of human flesh. The reasoning is that the aghori shouldnt fear anything in samsara because all is atma and we too are atma. To eat ones own feces not as a perversity but as a sign of recognition of the unity that is the all. "Everywhere I see, everything is Me".

Moving along to Buddhism in the book The Tantric Tradition by Agehanda Bharati. The same kind of antinomian nature is described in relation to the practices of buddhistic vamachara tantra. Here however the goal is seen to be the realization of the world as sunya or emptiness and that nothing has a real individual existence at its core.

If we make a huge leap to modern day in Stephen E. Flowers book Lords of the Left Hand Path. This perspective is highly influenced by th deinition of the left hand path as described by Dr. Michael Aquinos Temple of Set. Flowers explains that in his opinion the right hand path is the uniting of the Self with the objective universe, God or nature. The Self is destroyed. The left hand path however would then be the path to free, empower and bring forth a more forceful individual existence of the Self. Often to a level that is seen as divine. Flowers does indeed touch on other perspectives such as the ones described above that the right hand path and the left hand path does lead to the same goal but in general he doesnt deal alot with it and does everything to prove his own point. That to me is one of the major faults in the book because in all my sources that are not not connected to the "satanic scene" it is the traditional view described above (hindu and buddhistic vamachara tantra) that reigns supreme. Im not sure where the idea of the total individuation of the self entered the left hand path in the equation before the modern era. If anyone knows, please contact me.

Furthermore we have the view of the relatively small Swedish magical order Dragon Rouge in Glimpses of the Left Hand Path. Their main symbol, the dragon, symbolizes the union of all opposites. The left hand path is seen as the revival of the contact with nature, with primordial atavistic chaos, that which has been demonized by, among others, the christian religion. The feeling here is that the left hand path is non-dualist and that light and darkness complements eachother (just like it does in taoism or hinduism) while the righ hand path seeks to destroy the darkness and then reign supreme as "the one". This is also explained in Mörk Magi by Tommie Eriksson. It explains how the author sees Chaos and Darkness as the base of our existence and thus the foundation for light. We shoud then embrace all of nature and not just small parts of it and not ty to destroy one part of it which he claims is a trait of right hand path religion.

This is also a philosophy that is described by Jeremy Christner in his Kosmology booklet (not related to Dragon Rouge as far as I know). However this incorporates another element where Chaos is the foundation of all and that light emerges out of necessity but that the Demiurge who appears with the light, and is a creative aspect of light, thinks he is the be all end all of everything that is. The "dark path" would then be to fight the delusional worldview of this demiurge.

Chaos magician Peter J. Carrol writes in his Liber Null & Psychonautthat: "the magician [in the left hand path sense] aims to become a center of creation and destruction himself, a living manifestation of Chaos force within the realm of duality, a complete microcosm, a god" They see Chaos as the ruling force behind the universe and to be as Chaos would then be to act in a left hand path type of way.

Furthermore we have the Temple of the Black Light. This too is a small organisation and they have a view on the left hand path that we cant really find anywhere else. In their world light and darkness is at odds with eachother. This world, the cosmos, is a creation of the light and as such the goal is to ultimately destroy it. This is very different from hinduism and related systems who see the dark force as permeating this cosmos and actually in itself giving rise to this world. The goal is to realize this. The TotBL however has a more dualistic view and seeks to ultimately destroy this world. How they fit this into the use of hindu godess Kali is beyond me as the destruction of the world is but one of her three main qualities. The other two being the one who emanates the universe and then as the one who nurtures it.


This was written as a small overview of the different perspectives that do exist on the term left hand path and how different it can be used by different religions or in some cases different people within the same religion (at least same in regards to the name). This is no claim to any truth even though my personal feeling did shine through a few times. I hope this might create some curiosity with some readers who decide they want to know more.

Bertrand Russells views on the self and the body.

This is an excerpt from Bertrand Russells essay "do we survive death" that can be found in the book "why I am not a christian". The view on the self/soul is one which I would say I have to agree with. I also agree that its highly improbable that we can survive what we know as death. Purely linguistically its of course impossible to survive death because death means that which we do not surivive. However it is so commonly used to mean the same thing as "a life after this" or and "afterlife". It can also mean the survival of the bodys death but then they reason that what we truly are (the soul) doesnt die. This is of course far from my opinions since I am not a dualist. Anyway here's Bertrand Russells thoughts on this:

Before we can profitably discuss whether we shall continue to exist after death, it is well to be clear as to the sense in which a man is the same person as he was yesterday. Philosophers used to think that there were definite substances, the soul and the body, that each lasten on from day to day, that a soul, once created, continued to exist throughout all future time, whereas a body ceased temporarily from death till the resurrection of the body.

The part of this doctrine which concerns the present life is pretty certainly false. The matter of the body is continually changing by processes of nutriment and wastage. Even if it were not, atoms in physics are no longer supposed to have continuous existence; there is no sense in saying: this is the same atom as the one that existed a few minutes ago. The continuity of a human body is a matter of appearance and behavior, not of substance.

The same thing applies to the mind. We think and feel and act, but there is not, in addition to thoughts and feelings and actions, a bare entity, the mind or the soul, which does or suffers these occurrences. The mental continuity of a person is a continuity of habit and memory: there was yesterday one person whose feelings I can remember, and that person I regard as myself of yesterday; but, in fact, myself of yesterday was only certain mental occurrences which are now remembered and are regarded as part of the person who now recollects them. All that constitutes a person is a series of experiences connected by memory and by certain similarities of the sort we call habit.

If, therefore, we are to believe that a person survives death, we must believe that the memories and habits which constitute a person will continue to be exhibited in a new set of occurrences.

No one can prove that this will not happen. But it is easy to see that it is very unlikely. Our memories and habits are bound up with the structure of our brain. in much the same way in which a river is connected with the riverbed. The water in the river is always changing, but it keeps to the same course because previous rains have worn a channel. In like manner, previous events have worn a channel in the brain, and our thoughts flow along this channel. This is the cause of memory and mental habits. But the brain, as a structure, is dissolved at death, and memory therefore may be expected to be also dissolved. This is no more reason to think otherwise than to expect a river to persist in its old course after an earthquake has raised a mountain where a valley used to be.

The foundations of Satanism... as I would have it.

In a recent comment to my post on the TotBL someone asked me what my views were on the LHP and Satanism. I did give him/her an answer but it also inspired me to make a post. I dont claim to hold this as a true version. I consider it the one that resonates the most with me and the one I think would be closest to the truth. I am however sick to death of the attitude in satanic circles about "True Satanism" and "Pseudo Satanism". This is how I would have it:

1. Non-duality. One of the things I immediately saw as a core with Satanism was the attitude of non-duality. This is hardly explained as deep as in hinduism or buddism and it doesnt even mean the same exact thing but I found it to be a fundumental principle whenever I thought of satanic concepts. Let me explain.

I regard Satanism as something seperate from Christianity but that grew out from it which is why we use the lingo we use today. Much like Christianity grew out of Judaism but really isnt Judaism anymore. Satan was the concept of what opposed the good, the perfect (i.e. God) to the christians. My conclusion was always that as a Satanist one wouldnt just accept the christian worldview but "choose the other side of the coin" so to speak. The real opposition would be to throw away the coin alltogether. That would be truly Satanic in my world.

This means that from opposition of a christian worldviewwe get something totally different. First of all one main tenets of Christianity is that they divide everything into good or bad. We have concepts such as hell, Satan, sin, chaos and material reality that opposes all that the christian views as being good. To me this means that a Satanist is one who doesnt accept the dividing of the world like this. As I have already been writing about I dont view the soul as seperate from the body. It is all one thing (or several things combining - depending on the language/explenation used - think of the difference between Nietzschean hindu "soulview"). They cant exist apart because they depend on eachother and the words sould, spirit and body are just distinctions of different processed within the whole. They cant exist apart from eachother because they are eachother.

The same way I dont believe there is a material and a spiritual world. It is all the same but we categorize the processed differently. One can say that this related to the eastern concept of the physical world as maya - or illusion. This wouldnt mean that this world doesnt exist at all only that its true "core" may be hidden. It isnt what it seems to be alot of the time. This can be strongly related to modern sub-atomic physics as well.

Furthermore Satanism would be a focus on the world we live here. Alot of religions do prepare for the inevitable death of the self and whatever they think happens after that point. Satanism would then be something quite different in that it doesnt necessarily have to deny that something can happen after this life but that the focus should be on this life because its the only one we can ever know of.

Chaos is another thing that is linked to Satan in the bible (from where we often take our words and concepts). Or more correct Leviathan and Behemoth. The christian worldview has it that chaos and darkness did indeed precede God, order and light but the two are at odds with eahother. I think you know where Im going with this by now. I wouldnt accept this at all. I do reognize both chaos and order but much like spiritual and material the two are entwined and essentially the same. Chaos with its full potentiality manifests itself in order which if we look deep enough isnt something apart or seperate but it is also chaos at its core. This too is strongly related to modern sub-atomic physics. And while things may appear as stable and unchanging everything does indeed change at all times. There is no exception. This is very Heraclitean. and this also leads to another opposition of Christianity and how it described God.

In Christianity God is actual perfection. To be perfect means to not change at all. The perfect is the highest state and to change would mean to depart from that. And something that isnt perfect at all times isnt really perfect at all. Satan and chaos would be concepts of change and dynamics that opposes concepts of an unchanging and static "anything".

On a less metaphysical side of things I would consider Satanism not as immoral but amoral. There would be no static moral laws. Morals do exist and they need to exist if we are to lie together and function well. However no rule can always be true in every situation. Some may be more useful at more times and during longer times but there are always exeptions. This would be very un-Kantian and also un-christian since both recognizes eteral laws and morals.

I may elaborate even more on this in the future but this will do for now. Any comments or questions? Feel free to ask.

Paradise Lost

Farewell, happy fields,
Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! hail,
Infernal world! and thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor—one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

(Milton, Paradise Lost)

This quote is one of the all time classics. I stumbeled across this again a few days ago but today it really clicked with me. I think its the state of mind I am in as I write this that makes me see how true this statement really is.

Existence

I found this little gem while searching for tests to take online. Im sure this isnt the original source but I found it worth putting on my blog.

An eccentric philosophy professor gave a one question final exam after an entire semester dealing with a broad array of topics.

The class was already seated and ready to go when the professor picked up his chair, plopped it on his desk and wrote on the board: "Using everything we have learned this semester, prove that this chair does not exist."

Fingers flew, erasers erased, notebooks were filled in furious fashion. Some students wrote over 30 pages in one hour attempting to refute the existence of the chair.

One member of the class however, was up and finished in less than a minute.

Weeks later when the grades were posted, the rest of the group wondered how he could have gotten an A when he had barely written anything at all.

They found his answer consisted of two words: "What chair?"

The Temple of the Black Light

Now, TotBL has gotten loads of quasi followers ever since Jon Nödtveidt (of Dissection) was released from jail, reformed Dissection and the took his own life. In some way alo of people seem to think this is "the real deal", "real satanism" etc. Not so weird maybe considering the attitudes among alot of black metal fans in regards to music being "true" or "cult" or whatever.

Now I came into contact with Satanism long before I knew about TotBL (or MLO as they were known as) so naturally I have a different perspective. Alot different even. After seeing another blog link to Jason Kings you tube videos I remembered that I myself stumbled across his stuff a month ago or so. He has a video on TotBL which essentially reflects my views on them as well. I wouldnt have expressed myself quite like him but the critique is essentially the same. He however gives no time to their faulty use of Kali for example. TotBL's version of Kali is really only one third of her original meaning in hindu and tantric tradition and its a pretty laughable conclusion TotBL does in regards to her. And if they wanna reinterpret the old myths to something barely recognizable why not just make up new names for the god you wish to revere? The same thing goes for their interpretation of Set.

In any case here is the Jason King video on TotBL:

Chaos magic II

I found this post at the Abrahadbra forums. Its good, easy to understand and connects alot with my personal thoughts:

Chaos magicians do not believe in belief. There is no such thing as truth, so it's no use trying to find that one correct belief that corresponds to external reality. The core maxim of chaos magick is Hassan i-Sabbah's last words:

NOTHING IS TRUE; EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED

Yes, chaos magicians can be quite shallow and puerile (like Peter Carroll and others), but the philosophy of chaos magick, as I understand it and as I practice it, is mystic. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the foundation of all mysticism and all magick. Do I have your attention? Let me explain -

How is magick different from science or philosophy? Science and philosophy (analytic philosophy at least) seek to give a true account of the universe. They seek a set of propositions, sentences, mathematical equations and pictures that will give Knowledge. All you need to do is read the book and you know What's What.
Mysticism and magick, on the other hand, argue that reality and concepts are two different things. Reality is not a concept, so it can never be told. You can read The Book of The Law (and the commentaries too), but you haven't gained any insight into Truth. Truth must be experienced ('tasted' as the Sufis say), so we have all these practices to get to that state.
So aren't mystics basically just saying "Nothing is true"? That is to say, no sentence is Truth, no concept is reality. The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao.

It follows quite naturally from this that no moral law is true, therefore everything is permitted. (The teaching "Everything is permitted" is identical with the law of Thelema.)

The name 'chaos magick', in one sense, refers to the belief in Chaos as the being underlying everything. If something is Pure Chaos, then nothing can be said of it. If you can talk about it meaningfully, then it has order; it's not really Chaos. Chaos is the ineffable state from which everything emanates. It is therefore synonymous with Tao. (Compare Roman theogony, where Chaos is the father of all other gods.)

Other readings are "No thing is true", which is the Buddhist teaching of emptiness and impermance. Or "Nothing (i.e. The Void) is true", where "nothing" means something like Japanese Zen's "mu" or the Qabalistic zero.

You can, on the other hand, take the phrase "Nothing is True; everything is permitted" shallowly, to mean that there is neither mystic nor factual truth and that you should therefore follow your egotistical desires and drives like the Satanists do. Many chaos magicians do this and chaos magick has therefore gotten the reputation of being a shallow, materialistic system of sorcery. But that is just the shallowness of people with no insight and no interest in The Great Work. Similarly, I could take "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" shallowly and think it gives licence for violence, greed and pettiness, but I'd just be interpreting it wrongly.

To vote or not vote.

Just a small note before I go to a friend to study some. Yesterday I was thinking about a conversation I had at work with a woman who I think to a large degree summarizes the general Swedish standard outlook on things. Actually I get mad about her opinions alot of times but the thing this time around was about democracy and voting.

I dont know what other countries say but in Sweden alot of people is taught that if one doesnt vote at all (not even a blank vote) one has no right to complain about the political climate. I think that is totally wrong (and this comes from someone who did vote in the previous election).

Why would anyone take away the feelings of unsatisfaction with the current political climate if one doesnt vote. Sure the individual hasnt done anything to change the climate through voting but who took away his or her right to not me satified because of that?

Back when I was in school I remember what caused the most controversy was the amount of people not voting. Ever since I've seen these tendencies outside of just the school world as well. With less votes in general people worry about more extreme parties may thrive or the established parties finally get their head out of their asses and try to be creative to lure people back into voting for them. To just vote blank almost never gives anything. People just nod their heads and say "ok, so no existing party suited them, thats alrigh" and nothing is ever done about it. I think not voting at all is a bigger statement that one really doesnt believe on what the parties have to say.

And to make a extreme comparison no one ever say that the fans didnt have a right to be disapointed with say the Swedish football team in the world cup this summer. Very few outside of the team has probably had anything to do with their training, getting better and working to eliminate their weaknesses. Regardless people were so disapointed and starte to complain. Thing is even if we arent directly involved in a process I think we have the right complain about it if we see that it isnt any good according to our standards. Why shouldnt we?

The extent of magick's power.

These are two posts from the abrahadabra forums. I love the response given to post numer one.

coma_gnosis:

Chaos magick can do many things, it seems. It can bend "laws" of nature, change what is considered unchangeable, and create things and situations that could be considered impossible by others...

I've encountered many people who claim that magick can only affect the mind, some who say magick can have only slight affects on the world, others who say magick can do some things but not others, and other people who believe magick can do pretty much anything. I am of the last group. I think that magick can do things considered impossible by others.

I believe magick can trigger physical effects instantly, I believe it can changes a physical shape into another, I believe it can break any "law" or "rule" that would limit a magician.

I don't believe these things so that I'll feel more in control of my life or so that I'll feel special. I simply don't see any point to not believing you can do something. After all, if you don't believe something will work, it probably isn't going to. But if you believe it can, there's a chance it can work and you can do things experience life in ways that those who doubt cannot.

Have any of you experienced an "impossible" thing because you believed?

Wolfman:

I've experienced 'impossible' things and I don't think it mattered whether I 'believed' in what was happening or not. I think that's the trick: Humans get so caught up in what they 'believe in' or what they don't - when all along the multiverse is doing exactly what it wants to.

Human beings?

We are human beings not human doings.

(Norwegian woman on some tv-show)

Bertrand Russell quotes with comments.

I found more Russel quotes and I thought I'd include them here as well in a updated version of the original post. I will also add commentaries to them and how they apply to my life.

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

This is just plainly a good quote and it shows us what the essence in life should be. If you enjoy something it is not wasted or unneccessary. The true meaning of life should be this. Do what you enjoy and enjoy what you do. Happiness is the key.

We all have our time machines. Some take us back, they're called memories. Some take us forward, they're called dreams.

This struck me as very true because today I am so very torn between the two. In many ways I remember and glorify the past but my dreams are still rooted in the past. Everyone who has read this blog for some time know of my situation. I have been miserable losing the girl in my past. I had the dreams of creating a family with her and moving from Sweden to England to be closer to her. It all came crashing down and I have been in a very rough condition for a long time now. However all I can seem to dream about now is that I still want to move. I dont expect to get my ex girlfriend back. That would be stupid considering all things that has went own. However I still want to live in England and for some reason I feel ready to give up my apaprtment (which is very nice) and maybe take a even lower job on the scale of pay and reputation. My mind was so ready for everything that a move would include that when the original reason for the move "went away" my mind was still not attached to the life I live here and now. Its still way off in some foreign country creating a new life for itself over there. Thus my memory and my dream is so much interconnected and in a bad way that I dont feel rooten in where I am today.

You can't change the past, but you can ruin the present by worrying about the future.

And of course this is the continuation of what I wrote before. I want to change the past more thn anything. I used to say that I didnt regret anything because it all made me what I am today. Well thats not how I feel anymore. Maybe I will feel like what Im going through now was necessary if I will be happy in the future but right now there are things in my past I would have liked undone. I wish I could go back 4 years in time or so and know all I know now and reverse a few descicions I made back then. Because I know I cant change the past Im worrying about the future. Im actually pretty scared that if I do something now and take a chance things will get even worse than the are now (mentally that is). Of course they could turn out to get better as well and the one who doesnt try will never know but the fear of things getting worse is unfortunately overwhelming.