Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax/TOKUS)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.satanism,alt.pagan.magick
Subject: Re: DeanM: Light/Dark Neopaganism (Was Re: Dark roygbiv Light)
Date: 21 Dec 1995 11:54:59 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 344
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4bce2j$n16@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <4b5ov7$5ni@News1.mcs.net>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax/TOKUS)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:137704 alt.religion.wicca:18960 alt.magick.tyagi:5651 alt.satanism:30417 alt.pagan.magick:91

kaliyuga
49951221 [while I may be dismissed out of hand as Daniel was, here goes...]


deanm@mcs.com (Dean):

# First issue: Satanism and Paganism.

Your knowledge and experience may be lacking.  Much of today's 'Paganism'
is not best labeled as such, and I prefer 'Neopaganism' instead, since
there is little if any evidence of real continuity in old Europe.  See
your alt.pagan FAQ or the alt.religion.wicca FAQ.


# Satan is a Christian religious and Theosophical Arguement.  

'Satan' is a mythological being or divinity, not an argument.  Theosophy
has nothing to do with Satan or Satanism.  You're striking out badly
here in regards your knowledge and experience, I find.

It is also the case that while Christianity sometimes includes the figure
of Satan, so at times do other, non-Christian, religious (Islam but one
obvious example).
 

# Satanism is associated with a certain belief associate with Satan not
# necessarily as the embodiement of evil, but as the antithesis of
# Christ.  

You would define Satanism for others?  Or are you sufficiently experienced
in a broad spectrum of Satanism that you would know this narrow evaluation
to be accurate?  I suspect you of speaking from ignorance.


# Whether they exist or not, either Christa or Satan, is not a
# concern for Pagan's per se.  

That depends again on where one draws the lines with regard to Neopaganism
and Satanism (not the Urban Legend of Satanism).  I would go you one further
and suggest that whether *any* god exists or not is not really a concern 
for the mature Neopagan unless one is worshipping that deity oneself.  
Aside from that, it is none of our business.


# It is a concern when people outside paganism associate Satanism with 
# paganism OR when pagans include Satanism as a pagan religion.  

I agree that it is a 'concern', though I am not sure that you will be
able to successfully argue that it is a 'falsity'.


# Satan, becasue of this adversarial shape, is associated with evil while 
# christ is associated with good.

Neopagans, on the whole (especially those with any experience) tend to
reject the moral notions of 'good' and 'evil'.  Neopagans are painted
into the 'evil' side of conservative Christian moralisms *regardless*
of whether Satanism (by any form) is included within it.  In fact, most
conservative Christians define 'Satanism' to be anything that is not
their own religion.  So what?  Neopaganism does not take Christianity
as its guide for definitions, and the two religious movements are not
even completely separate (as many Christian Witches or Christ-worshipping
pagans will attest).

It is to all our benefit to avoid small-minded religious bigotry and
the cascading trap of absolute definition wrt Neopaganism.  Do it at
your peril.


# Here's the trap.  If pagan's include satanism as part of the pagan
# spectrum, then, by association, we must also include Christianity.  

I don't agree, though I see your reasoning.  Christianity is a huge
religious edifice which preceded Neopaganism and thus could not be
contained within it.  Satanism (esp of a more organized and non-
Christian sort) could easily fit within Neopaganism if the styles
of worship or common values remained true.  There are too many
differing values promoted by the Christian community at present to
reconcile it with Neopaganism (nature, sexuality, ethics, etc.).


# In order for satanism to be, it needs its adversary, Christ; without
# Christ, Satan as an entity looses meaning and becomes a two
# dimensional figure, looses the adverserial aspect, and concepts such
# as Hell becomes absurd and needless.  Therefore, for satanism to
# remain satanism, it must have christ as part of its process.  

Please see the alt.satanism FAQ so as to broaden your notions of what
today constitutes Satanism beyond your limited (and heavily Christian-
biased) perspective.


# Then, if satanism is part of Paganism, so too, is christianity because 
# that is part of satanism.

You've got it backwards.  Christianity is not *part* of Satanism even
if you are talking about the Urban Legends.  It is a reactionary
undercurrent to an oppressive society/church where it appears as anti-
Christian, and could be said to be appellate or tangental to the JCI
traditions, but rejects these outright even if they accept some of the
ethics and mythos.


# I do not wish to include christianity in paganism, therefore, satanism
# should not be a part or choice in paganism.

Where will the line be drawn as to who is accepted within Neopagan
society?  If someone loves to invoke Yahweh or Christ in circle and 
does everything similar to Wiccans otherwise, separating themselves
from the churches and typical Christian society, then you'd still
classify them as 'Christian'?  I think this is silly.


# ...the Dark cannot, from  a pagan expression, be stanistic.  

That would depend entirely what you mean by 'satanistic'.  Given your
previously ideas on this, I agree with you, yet I think you'd better 
open your eyes.


# That is, because it is Dark, it must be satanic and evil.

Yes, this is the classic Christian response among fundamentalists,
yet even many Christians question this logic (see FiatLVX as an
example).


# This is a prejudice that has been enforced in our minds from birth;

Wrt 'satanic' and 'evil', enforced within *your* mind, perhaps, but
not mine.  Many Neopagans haven't had strict Christian upbringing.


# the good guy wears white, the bad guy wears black in westerns, the
# evil guy does his evilness at night, the good guy during the day;
# etc....

Usually the films and whatnot don't explicitly identify 'evil' and
'good', though they *do* (and I think rightly) associate 'protagonist'
with 'light' and 'antagonist' with 'dark'.  Compare the Tibetan and
other Eastern notions of 'beneficent' and 'wrathful' deities.  There
is deep mystery here (cf. psychological models; consciousness/light
and unconsciousness/dark).


# This is not to say that the Dark is all good; this is to say
# that the Dark is not necessarily evil.

Neopagans typically reject notions of good and evil.  Most Satanists
do also.  I'll say this many times if necessary.  Your proposition 
is therefore flawed.


# ...Dark and Lights are realms just like ours; 

I have no idea what this means.  Please elaborate.  What is a 'realm'
and what are you talking about when you say 'our realm'?


# ...its is also types of energy as well.

Well, this is the common notion and I think it is a leftover from your
(admitted) Christian upbringing.  It results in stupidity like 
'black/harmful' and 'white/beneficent' magick.  When paired with 
morality and ethics, this is harmful to us all.


# Actually, the whole spectrum from Red to Violet, black to white are
# all forms of energy.  On the hand, they are concepts for our minds to
# understand the lessons, to understand the universe, around us.  Dark
# and Light are concepts for us to start to comprehend and know the
# universe around us.

Same could be said about from Christian to Neopagan to Satanism, if you
really want to stretch it.  All forms of religion, concepts in our minds
to understand each's lessons and how it portrays the universe around us.
They are social systems allowing us to start to comprehend and know
the cosmos and our place within it.  

Yet you want to make absolute divisions in a somewhat arbitrary paradigm.
I see the popularity and wisdom of doing this, yet would point out the 
limitations of the way you're going about it.  I suggest that instead of:

	* thinking you know what these religious systems are (which, at
	  least in the case of Neopaganism and Satanism you appear not to)

	* generalizing and separating based on ethical categories which
	  only apply to your Christian upbringing (evil/good; dark/light)

	* attempting to separate out based on what society thinks or on
	  what the reputation of each is,


pose a more rational argument in regards an informed analysis of what 
these in some cases magico-religious complexes *actually* include
and suggest some means of differentiation based on one or more of the
following:

	* liturgy or ritual forms (a useless endeavor, I think)

	* ethics and religious authority

	* mythos and values (the one I generally pick).


At least with these you'd have more of a chance to be taken seriously,
but you'd have to make a more careful study of the wide variety not
only of Neopagan, but of Christian and Satanic religious expressions
on the whole.  I'm trying to do this myself and find it a mammoth
enterprise.

It is not an easy task and therefore I can understand why you have
not yet undertaken it.  In not doing so prior to your expression,
however, you have omitted very serious and necessary information 
which is required for such a differentiation.  Such omission undermines
your proposal at its foundation and your post will be dismissed by
those who know your extremity for what it is.


# If, as most wiccans do based on the popular teachings,  one sees the
# universe as Dark and Light, 

You're making a case (if you are even correct here) for the KINSHIP of
JCI trads with Wicca, since the Manichaean luminal division flows
through all of them (at least as you portray it -- I can see a quite
powerful means of arguing that the Christian is dual/moral while the typical
Wiccan and Satanic is polar/metaphysical in character).


# ...then the Dark is a realm that has in one corner, evil and satanistic 
# concepts AND has the creative ingenious areas associated with the light.  

[much of the rest omitted as unworthy of response due to its extremity
 and incomprehensibility]

I think you're making all this up (about 'realms' and the notions of
creation/destruction dualism which you appear to have retained from
your Christian background).


# ...a hindu diety whose name has been used a lot on the internet 
# recently, is Kali-Mar.  

That's Kali-Ma, and She has various forms, some quite wrathful/destructive.


# Kali and Siva were making love and both were reaching their ultimate
# orgasms; Kali became wild and wilder and began to trample on Siva,
# becoming Kali-Mar....  

Please go back and read your Indian mythos.  This is rather skewed and
off-kilter.  There are many stories about Kali, some involving Siva and
some not.  Some worship Kali alone, many of them together, many worship
Siva alone or with completely other gods.  Things are just not as black
and white as you seem to want to portray them (pun intended :>).


# Instead of fending off the 'attack', Siva became
# part of the destructive act and 'died' at the moment of his orgasm....

Where did you get these ideas?  Do the traditional tantrics know that
you are espousing these teachings as somehow perasive?  I'll Xpost to
alt.magick.tantra for input.


# ...Siva [knew] well that he was going to die at the hands(feet) of 
# Kali-Ma(r).  He wanted to die at Her feet, He needed to die at her 
# fett.  Why?

I think your speculation about 'Siva wanting to die' is ludicrous.
The feet, in India, are a very symbolic and important element of
religious and mystical teaching.  They are associated with the earth,
with the body, and (esp. among the dualistic ascetics) relative 
'impurity'. 


# In Tibetan Buddhism, which heavily influences Hinduism, 

You sure this ain't the other way 'round?


# ...in understanding the philosophy of the religious figures,  

Your implication that there is some unified philosophy surrounding
these complex religious figures is fallacious.  What you've given
is at best one tradition's interpretations and at worst some skewed
version that has no relation to 'Hinduism' (so-called).


# When one suspends judgement and looks at the Dark, one can see 
# quickly how valuable the Dark is and why it becomes important for 
# people to work with the Dark.

With this I agree completely and would ascribe this value in the
examination and acceptance of at least some aspects of Satanism.


# Is there 'evil' in Light?  Yes, Light can be destructive as well.

Here is your fundamental and leftover bias as I see it:

	EVUL => DESTRUCTION

I think you may wish to get over it.


# Just look at any desert and you can see the results of too much light....

Cf. 'Set'.


# ...KMTic universal view, hindu world view and Japanese pre-buddhist view)
# (this difference is a little hard to explain in words, it is something
# that need to be experienced--carefully)

You talking about ancient Egyptian here?  Ok.  I doubt that there is such
a thing as 'a Hindu worldview' and would challenge you to produce such a
peculiar animal.  As for Japanese pre-Buddhism, you mean Shinto?


# ...If one is truly persuing balance in one's life and one's spirituality, 
# then integration of the Dark is as important as the light.  

Here you are coming onbase again and I suggest this be applied to the less
objectionable forms of Satanism.

[btw, try limiting your text -- it ranges ungainly]


# ...Don't be limited by two concepts, the Universe is much more 
# wonderful and beautiful and amazing than two mere concepts.

I suggest that this is very good advice and would ask you to apply
it to yourself and your own views of these religious complexes, since
I think you oversimplify and err due to lack of experience and breadth
of knowledge.


# Hope this helps....

Every little bit does, even if skewed and/or unfounded.

Lorax (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)
 The Order of K@s Under Satan