Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax/TOKUS)
Newsgroups: alt.satanism,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: DVera, Magick, Nature/Satan, Neopagan Values (Was
Date: 7 Feb 1995 07:19:13 -0800
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 246
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <3h831h$7v8@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <25757EVILMHPDJIKUXP@met.com>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Lorax/TOKUS)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.satanism:14351 alt.pagan:89267 talk.religion.misc:149182

Kali Yuga 49950207


dvera@met.com quotes me and writes:

|> Actually I don't associate with any particular theory.  I enjoy
|> studying all coherent systems of thought, and while I may argue
|> particular stances within certain groups (e.g. anarchy or
|> anti-archy within this newsgroup and other calcifying religious
|> forums) I am like you in that I prefer neither in any absolute
|> sense....

|Then you and I have more in common than I'd thought.

Yes, plus I deplore much you have criticized about the organized groups
which associate with Satanism.  And I really do see it this way -- that
there are groups of people who are associating themselves with Satanism,
rather than that any one group (or set) are establishing the religion.


|> Considering that I equate Satan and Kali directly....

|Here you and I disagree.  I do _NOT_ equate Satan with Kali because
|I don't know enough about Hindu culture to make such an interpretation 
|of Kali....

Fair enough.  While I do not follow Hindu religion, I do have a relationship
with Her through time and Her image as described, drawn, etc., by Hindus.
That is, I don't think that it is necessary to know about a culture in order
to establish a relationship with a goddess who may take up residence there,
though I can see the value in doing so (thus I have studied the religion
and philosophy of India as well as some things about the politics and 
history).  I'd like to know why you think it so valuable.


|...I probably do know at least as much about Hinduism as a lot of 
|Neo-Pagans who blithely adopt Kali and other Hindu deities into their 
|pantheons.  

When it is a shallow thing I tend to agree that it is 'blithe'.  However,
I think that many Neopagans are quite sincere and dedicated in their
worship.  If they go far enough with it they may end up assisting a deep
transformation of the culture in which they live.  I think that Kali is
very good for the Western world.  She will lead a revolution of sorts.


|"Satan" and "Kali" are of course _conceptually_ very different, 

You mean the way in which they are each described?  Well, of course, and
yet they have very many commonalities, not the least of which they are
both identified with Nature by their devotees.  I'm sure this is not
overly uncommon, and yet I see their fusion going into a Baphomet and/or
Cthulhuesque image.


|as most Neo-Pagans will be quick to point out.  

Hehehehe, well, you weren't talking to most Neopagans at this point. :>
However, I've broadened our bandwidth to include Neopagan 'listeners'.  
I think that many will have valuable insights into this issue.


|whether the underlying energies of the two deities are the same, or
|at least very similar, despite obvious theological differences
|between the Christian idea of Satan and the Hindu idea of Kali (or
|at least the Hindu idea of Kali as perceived by us Western
|comparative religion hobbyists).

If you want to get all technical, the Christian Satan and the Hindu Kali
are worlds apart.  I have my own relationship with them in which I see
Satan in a refraction from Christianity (being the gross and most intimate
face of Jehovah) and Kali as an abstraction from Indians (being the most
expansive form of the Mother Goddess).  To me they are two sides of the
same coin.

I find it immensely interesting that LaVey siezed upon Baphomet as his
occult banner-image, the Goat of Mendes and the Templars forming his
central thrusts here.  Baphomet is dual-gendered, and is represented 
(by Levi at least) in a very Hindu-like fashion, one hand up, one down,
though apparently varying the mudras to a Zorastrian puzzle).


|A deity is an extremely complex concept, complex enough that any
|attempt to translate it across cultures is likely to be a vast
|oversimplification at best.  

I agree.  However, I think there are other ways to go about this.  It is
one thing to enter into the popular social religion and encounter the god
there.  It is quite another to establish a relationship with that divinity
and then explore Her aspects through the filter of the culture in which
She appears.  I do indeed separate the god from the people who worship Her,
and think that She would likely appear differently to different people at
different times (to Indians as Kali, to Christians as Satan, to occultists
as Baphomet).


|Actually, a deity isn't fundamentally a _concept_; it is something that 
|people in a given culture have _experienced_.  

Ultimately a deity is something that an _individual_ experiences, and this
may be affected very deeply by the culture in which the individual resides,
or the culture which associates with the god (if the worshipper seeks the
god through that culture).


|It's hard enough to explain a spiritual experience
|to people in your own culture, let alone people in another culture. 
|Thus it's _extremely_ difficult to answer my question as to whether
|the Hindu idea of "Kali" is a more positive view of _THE_SAME_
|subtle force that Christians traditionally regard as "evil".

I hope nobody does answer that (absolutely).  It would not be worth our
time.  I assert that this is my experience of this deity -- Nature --
that SHe is dual-aspected, seen by different people in different ways,
and that I know Hir through the images of Satan and Kali, even while I
am dedicated solely to Kali-Ma and shall always be so from what I can
tell.


|I generally prefer _NOT_ to equate one culture's deities with
|another's, except in the face of compelling evidence to do so.

It is a foolish enterprise in any case.  You are talking about it as if
it were a mathematical expression.  The expressions of cultures arise
from their unique experiences of their gods.  The experiences are not
the same and will therefore never lead to an 'equation' of the gods in
this way.  However, this does not mean that the gods are not the same
in the way of being That which each culture has experienced through the
filters of their preconceptions, born of time, space and social station.

I think it *is* valuable to compare and contrast the various descriptions
of gods, even among the diverse cultures of the world, and I would suggest
that the similarities and differences may indicate to us (individually,
not necessarily in any absolute fashion) that there is an identity
beyond the images so fostered.  This is not to say that the personalities
of the gods are not beautiful and real.  I wish to be the first to oppose
the homogenization-through-transcendence-of-the-person which is so
popular among 'Hindus', Muslims and other Religions of the Book in the West.


|SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN "NEOPAGAN VALUES" AND MY SATANISM:

|1) As noted above, I don't believe in blithely adopting other
|   cultures' deities.  

When would you ever establish a relationship with a god who was not of
your culture?  When does 'adoption' stop being 'blithe'?


|   Since I was brought up Christian (and am
|   much more knowledgeable about the history of Christianity than
|   most Christians), I do think I know enough about Christianity 
|   -- and about the spiritual experiences of Christians -- to make
|   a sound re-interpretation of the Christian concept of "Satan".

Why does knowledge about history and religion qualify one to 're-interpret'
any religious concept?  How does one know when one is so qualified?  What
are the disadvantages of unqualified interpretations?


|   I believe that at least some Neo-Pagans _have_ tapped into
|   genuine subtle forces, and thus their deities are in a sense
|   real, but are not necessarily the _SAME_ entities as the
|   ancient or foreign deities that the Neo-Pagans are using the
|   names of. 

I think that this is a very insightful observation.  I also like to think
of the gods as computer programs and our minds as computers.  Plugging in
centuries-old programs to a culture not our own, what is likely to happen?


|2) I don't believe in the "Threefold Law" or any similar notion
|   that the universe automatically dispenses human justice.

This appears to be more Wiccan than Neopagan, though I admit of its 
popularity.


|3) Many (not all) Wiccans seem to have an unrealistic, one-sided
|   "white light and bunnies" (as some more realistic Wiccans have
|   called it) view of "Nature".  Many also have what strikes me as
|   not just respect for, but an almost anthropomorphic
|   sentimentalization of, "the Earth as our Mother".

This extends not only within Wicca but all through human nature.  This
is why Indians see Kali in Her maternal and nurturing aspects when the
images She presents to them clearly indicate Her wrathfulness and
vampiricism as well.  This is why Christians focus so strenuously upon
the New Testament God of Love instead of the wrathful Jehovah-god of
the Judaic scripture.  

As for Mother Earth, I think this is more than mere sentimentality.
I notice a distinct and lasting form of relationship between children
and mothers across many many cultures, and usually the mother is seen
as one from whom one derives one's nourishment, early sustenance, and
from whom one has been gestated.  In many ways humanity as a species
has not yet progressed (and maybe never will) past the point of this
kind of relationship with the globe of elements we call 'Earth'.  She
is not only a 'place', but is still a sort of 'womb', from which we
are only beginning to tentatively take steps outward.

I agree that it can go too far, but I see this as a reactionary
attitude toward the extremely apersonal materialism indoctrinated by
Western governments.


|4) I don't buy the classical Wiccan idea that we should all try to
|   be "balanced" in terms of "light" vs. "dark" subtle energies. 
|   To me this is like saying we all are or should be bisexual.  I
|   believe that different people have natural affinities for
|   different deities and for different kinds of subtle energies. 

Wonderful!  I think what you are reflecting here is a popularized Wicca
that is not the case for many.  You are in effect supporting those aspects
of the Craft which I see as weakened by popularization, and I'm glad of it.


|There are still more differences between my views and Neo-Paganism,
|but the above are what immediately come to mind.  

Ah, but I was mostly concerned with your *values*.  It does seem that you
share a value of Nature (as you see Hir), for example.


|There are of
|course some similarities too, namely: (1) my association of my
|principal deity with the Earth and (2) my polytheism.  I am in fact
|_MORE_ polytheistic than many Wiccans and Wicca-based Pagans, since
|I tend to regard distinct deities as distinct deities rather than
|facets of the One.

In this we are quite similar, though I tend to mix up my polytheism
with my monotheism, preferring neither absolutely and remaining
blissfully confused on the issue. :>


|I should also mention that two things I admire about Neo-Paganism
|are its relative lack of dogmatism and the overall intelligence of
|many of its public spokespeople.  In both these areas, I'm sorry to
|say, the Neo-Pagan scene is far better off than the Satanist scene.

I want to emphasize this and agree.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with me.

tyagi/TOKUS