Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyagi/TOKUS) Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.order,talk.religion.misc,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.philosophy.taoism Subject: ToS Ethical Instruction (Was Re: Satan or God??) Date: 3 Aug 1995 11:40:45 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 178 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <3vr57d$45t@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: <3vj3ut$a14@jobe.shell.portal.com> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (tyagi/TOKUS) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:22322 alt.magick.tyagi:3925 alt.magick.order:471 talk.religion.misc:172222 alt.philosophy.zen:3521 alt.buddha.short.fat.guy:28236 talk.religion.buddhism:9960 alt.philosophy.taoism:1228 ky950803 [discussion of dogma, doctrine, Zen Buddhism, religion and Satanism] Robert.Menschel@tefnut.gigo.com (Robert Menschel) (Balanone? Neat :>) and I continue our discussion!: Menschel (Balanone): |>|The Temple of Set still does teach and firmly believe in |>|the ethical use of Black Magic. tyagi: |>I thought the Temple didn't engage dogma. [Menschel's canned response:] |"Dogma" is the blind adherence to past teachings, without the flexibility |of adapting to new discoveries or philosophies. Thank you for clarifying. Please explain how the Temple of Set goes about instructing the ethical use of Black Magic. Precisely what is done to communicate ethical principles? Is this fundamentally a rote learning, or is it something which requires cohabitation within a Temple residence? Just how deep is this instruction of which you speak? And of what is it comprised? I don't want the details, what the ToS says is wrong or right, beneficial or detrimental, risky or expedient, however you compare them. I want you to explain how you go about the educational process itself and in what sort of time-arrangement. If there is no standard, then specify how it is *typically* done. Via email? In person? Reading from books? My aim isn't to be redundant but to challenge you on this point more severely, and if there is a weak spot, to strike with force. :> For fun, I'll take that lovely quote you sent out and rebutt you. I don't always bother, letting statements like this fall as they may, but I wasn't intending to address zen or Zen Buddhism within the newsgroup at that time and figured your comment would be seen for the extremity it was. You quoted our previous conversation: tyagi: |> What if, like Zen Buddhism, it is not doctrinal in scope? |> Even the Temple of Set claims not to have a dogma, though I must admit |> I notice a fairly consistent 'philosophy' presented in its Introductory |> documents. This is an unclear quotation. I don't have the original, but the 'it' about which I spoke would appear to be Satanism, and I think we were having a discussion about the possible qualities of Satanism. I was arguing that Satanism isn't necessarily doctrinal and that Zen Buddhism was an example of a type of mysticism/religion that, at certain times and within certain sects, has rejected doctrine completely. 'Morality' within a doctrineless foundation amounts to karma yoga or wu-wei. At the time I may have also been arguing that 'dogma' is defined in many different ways and that the most common definitions appear to apply to the ToS (an espousal by a religious organization which it represents as correct, the truth). Menschel (prev. Balanone): |You seem to have confused "dogma" and "doctrine". Granted the dictionary |seems to treat them as synonyms, but in most usage there is a significant |difference: "Doctrine" is a body of principles, knowledge, and/or |beliefs or teachings. Even Zen Buddhism has doctrine, since it has a |common philosophy about reality and its relationship to the individual, |and since it has teachings about how to relate to this reality. In other |words, it has suggestions about how to live one's life -- that is doctrine. Perhaps I have misunderstood them. I have struggled with them over the years and patient people such as yourself have attempted to explain it to me, but there are certain things I still fail to understand. You see, my Am.Her.Dic. roughly defines them as that which is taught (doctrine) as compared to that which a religious organization teaches is true (dogma) and I think that you're likely to find more people who agree that these usages are more proper when dealing with the Temple of Set, which is a religious organization. Not all Zenners accept doctrine, by the way. Intellectualization and discourse and principles and such haven't always been very important to that line, should you associate it with its roots previous in China, for example. In fact, some scholars claim that at least one sect of Zen was established for the purposes of moving AWAY from doctrines of any kind, of rational discernment as an element of religious dedication. To this extent I think your comment about Zen Buddhism may be somewhat extreme. Quite beside this, the roots of the words relate to different things, and these seem to yield a better foothold on the most common meanings of the terms themselves. 'Doctrine' relates to teaching, the Latin 'docere' and 'dogma' to thinking, the Greek 'dokein', to seem, or think. I gather from this that one may teach a doctrine and not believe it true, and that if one teaches something one believes, then it is a dogma, though I know that this is not a common presumption. ;> *** CENTRAL ASSERTION *** My contention is that to advocate religious theology, mysticism, metaphysics, ethics, etc. on behalf of a religious organization, maintaining the truth of those ideas, is to engage dogmatism and that to thereafter claim to be devoid of dogma is self-contradictory. I'd love to hear your response, should you think my post warrants one. *** *** |Doctrine is essential to the identity of any group, philosophy, or |movement -- it defines and/or identifies those who are part of the group. |This applies equally well to Zen Buddhists, Satanists, and Chaoticists, |as well as to more conventional groups. Dogma is almost always harmful |in the long run, since it causes the group to miss out on humanity's |advances. I think this illustrates well what you mean by the term, yes. And by your meaning I agree with you that there probably isn't dogma in the Temple of Set. However, given other definitions you may be put to test. |not dogma, but doctrine or view. There is a difference. I agree, and my inquiry concerns the level of accuracy posited the conceptualizations put forward by Temple officers and others who may speak with authority for the Temple about its doctrines. This is not only a very key element in the examination of manipulative cults but it is illustrative of the level of dogma (the type and volume of information which is instructed and presumed true by members). It determines the difference between a genius-dynamo and a fanatic-cult. |There is no dogma, but there is knowledge and understanding. |If someone thought 'Set' equated to 'Nature,' he'd be wrong, |according to our current perceptions and understandings of Set. |If he were right, he could work to convince the rest of us, and |if he were successful we'd change our doctrine. That's what we |mean by "no dogma." But we see no reason to accept someone who |states "2 + 2 = 7". [balance of quotation deleted] This (and several posts by you and other Temple members) presents me with the reason to presume that you are instructing things which you presume to be correct. I'm content to bypass the terminology and cut to the chase. This is the information I was after: that part of being a member of the Temple of Set is the instruction of others of what you yourself think to be true or have been told is true by others and are obliged to teach is true as a service to the organization. Is this accurate? |Maybe we should add something like that to a FAQ? Egads I hope not. :> Just cuz I asked twice? |The ethical use of Black Magic is an important part of our Doctrine, |intimately involved in the process of Xeper. Fancy words, ok. Given your language, how far does your obligation to instruct your doctrine extend? To any new members? To the world? To the interested? Not at all? I.e. is this a religious mission on which the Temple has set itself? tyagi/TOKUS tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com --------------------------- "...those who surround themselves with darkness and speak most of death are probably the most life-loving of all.... we keep our death close to us; we don't cushion and insulate ourselves from reality. Satanists keep constant reminders of our own mortality around, *momentos mori*, to spur us to enjoy each moment as if it were our last." Anton LaVey -- ** CC public responses to email ** ------------------------------------------------ TRY : http://www.portal.com/~tyagi/nagasiva.html