a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.


Satanism, Buddhism, Self

To: alt.zen,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.consciousness.mysticism,sci.philosophy.meta
From: (!)
Subject: Re: Satanism, Buddhism, Self
Date: 4 May 1997 11:34:42 -0700

49970504 AA1  Hail Satan (I was going to be brief.  couldn't help but range on)

a continuing conversation with (carl):
#...This oneness (and I emphatically deny any gooey light-n-sweet ethos) 
#is simply your original conciousness refracted into multitudinous forms.  

this is where you lost me.  I got 'the All'.  I don't follow here.

#> ... though the construct may still be altered through involvement.
#you think you operate in a vacuum. Don't you imagine that when you
#enter, you _yourself_ are influenced? 

of course, the self-concept is influenced by events.  the body and
perceptions and emotions and thoughts are also so influenced.  there
is no continuous 'self' aside from this to *be* influenced.

#How will you know which of your internal factors issue from these 

I'm not sure that's relevant.

#> #> 'predetermined' and 'free' are contrived ideations with only relative
#> #> substance and meaning.

#> 'predetermined' is relative to that which is now present. 

#That is everything, isn't it?

of course, and we project backwards in assessing that predetermination,
unable to verify our postulation.  causative factors are insubstantial.
our inference is that a cause yields an effect consistently.  something
is 'predetermined' relative to some cause.  without the presumption of
cause, predetermination evaporates.

#> #Yet there is a source of animation.
#> where?  is it a True Source or is it merely the hand of the puppetmaster?
#> (another puppetmaster behind him)  you claim the 'potential' is the
#> puppetmaster.  I am saying if there is none here as 'me', then that
#> 'potential' or 'probablistic' puppetmaster is equally fallacious.
#Equally fallacious, equally true. The point is everything is animated,
#and neither you nor I are responsible. Could we have a raising of hands
#as to whom is animating things? Anybody? Guess not ...
#Does this mean it is not happening because we cannot see the source?

it means that there is no source evident.  'responsibility' is a
contrived indicator.  we infer it, it is the equivalent of 'free will'.

#The 'we' that thinks it 'does things' is working strictly off maps.

there is thinking, there is working.  the 'we' is a map to help 
integrate the experience.  without the map there is only animation.

#> you seem to want to fault humans for mistaking a locus centrus
#> and yet describe us as responsible for presuming this
#> responsibility!  see what I mean?
#Yes, I see. We are not responsible for presuming this responsibility. We
#are stubborn in relinquishing it if it is pointed out. 

almost my meaning.  'we' are fallacious, and this is why 'we' cannot be
responsible or the cause of anything, even though motivation can arise
and this body-mind-heart can appear to originate thought, action, desire.

#> cannot be rightfully said that : " I wished for a raise in
#> #salary, so I waved my wand and caused it to happen"
#> perhaps not, but it may rightfully be said that : "there was a wish
#> for a raise in salary, there was a hand waving, and the salary was
#> raised."  as with any scientific evaluation, all we can discern is
#> the sequence of events.  assigning cause is a matter of repetition
#> and abstracted rationalization.
#Will this affect your next attempt to change some future course of
#events in your favor?

ah now you ask the perfect question.  'does it make a difference in
the course of our behavior?'  as to INVOLVEMENT, it need not.  as to
the QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE it might be infinitely beneficial to see
through the charade (such as when things don't 'go according to our

#> ... and throwing out substantial (relative)
#> cause altogether. 
#I'm not throwing it out. I believe that if we are to have prime cause
#over Self (both subjective and objective), 

show me this Self!  which cause arises from where?

#we must disengage from localized and temporal identity. This doesn't 
#invalidate this identity, it merely relegates it to the relative and 
#fleeting course of phenomena, where it is in fact one of an infinitude 
#of interrelated factors always in 'midstream'. 

disassociate?  doesn't sound very helpful. :>
there is no other identity than the localized and temporal.  this is
part of the definition of identity.

#> yes, Prime Cause is unlocatable.  this does not
#> mean that relative cause is insubstantial, even with a 
#> continuously variable identity.
#Not insubstantial, but impotent.

Prime Cause is fictional.   thus it is also 'impotent'.  walk up the
stream to find out which water is pushing the other water and making
it run.  why? => why? => why? => why?  it never ends.  your Prime
Cause is that of the theists.  it has never been found (origination)
and never will be.  you expect there to be a Cause Fountain at the
center of the cosmos, wherefrom all the cause emanates?

#> #The wish, the action, and the result, all sprout up at once.
#> actually they sprout up at DIFFERENT times.  their connection is what
#> allows or disallows us to understand them in relation to relative cause.
#How many times are there? Can you show me? It is always now. The rest is
#in our heads.

not always the SAME now.  that is, it isn't SIMULTANEOUS, but DISCREET.

#> it is not an actor, though one may be projected upon it.  it is not the
#> verbal conditioning, though it may incorporate the effects of this
#> conditioning.  it is not the tools, though it may make use of tools to
#> effect change (so fore-cognized/pre-intentioned, this becomes "magick").
#Yes, this being exists. Though I am not satisfied with that (for
#myself), because I ask "where is the root of this being?". A pointless
#question, because the inquirer hasn't the ability to encompass the
#answer. The solution lies, IMHO, in divestiture of small i.

to me this sounds like: "there is no Prime Cause evident.  therefore if
this body and mind terminates it shall be found."  insanity!

#>you have met this consciousness?  it has benefacted you with the
#> Truth of its ultimate unity (rather than duality, nonduality,
#> multiplicity, etc.)?
#You speak of it as if it were other than yourself. Your own reality is
#the only self-evident truth.

'my' own reality is as a rushing stream which flows through this place.
the 'my' is a byproduct of the rushing and reference by passersby, the
'cause' is illusory projection, like pretending there is a 'God'.

#engaging in "Magick" relieves the small self momentarily from the
#feeling of helplessness, and bolsters  its feeling of causality, however

in this you remove the k from magick and it becomes magic.  no more Kteis.
no more 11th letter.  no more mystery, no more development.  no more self,
no more arising of motivation.  remove the Prime Cause instead and there
can be magick once again, despite the lack of an 'I'.  else locate the i
inside the I and suddenly the magician exists.

#> HOWEVER, this body ends at its skin, yes.  
#No. You _notion_ of your body ends there. In your mind's map, the
#Sovereign State of I has a skin border in common with the Sovereign
#State of Outside. 

because there is a border indicates its ending, yes.  something new
begins beyond this border, however easily we may detect the absolute
location of that change between this body and that 'outside'.

#This is only on your internal map. If I take my car to
#the Jersey border, will I see a red painted line? Does each state's
#Capital have a huge star hovering over it? 

now you talk ontology.  there is a body as far as my awareness allows.
presuming there is not runs contrary to the evidence.  now the 'I' is
another matter altogether (for there does not appear to be evidence
for its existence, let alone its 'reality' except as a figment).

#I take a chicken. I kill/pluck/gut/chop it. Pour the result into boiling
#water with some vegetables and seasonings, add flame and time ... and i
#have chicken soup. Where did the chicken go? Obviously every boundary is
#temporary and relative. What you eat goes into making you. 

this is very lovely, thanks.

#The only constant is the system as-a-whole. Your Cosmos. Your Big I. 

what constant?  what Big I?  show me this!

#The point though, is not to identify with the mapmaking faculty. As
#valid as it is, and even though it is a part of the territory (as is
#everything else). 

who identifies with what?  why identify at all?  you seem to wish to
identify with some mystical 'Big I' which is a Primal Cause.  I say
this is as silly as identifying with a 'small i', which is an
'temporal and relative cause'.

#> there is no actor, there is only acting.  you mention this yourself
#> in the first part of this email ('not a noun, but a verb').
#Let us say "Being in a body, deliberately enjoying this local experience
#while remaining anchored in Self".

what 'Self'?  show me this Self!

#> there is no more "reality" to this Big Self than to the little.  
#No more, and no _less_.

yet you claim that there is value to dispersing the little self and
residing in the Big One.  I say, let go of both of them!  also, I say,
what is the value of residing in the Big Self?

#The entirety of existence is YourSelf which you have dissociated from in
#order to play the game "i". There is no proof of this. It is simply lead
#to when you consider that your own existence is the only self-evident
#reality, and that all boundaries are relative. The original split was
#between objective and subjective.

this only implies to me that there is no small i, not that there is a
Big I.

#> like the 'I', the 'All' is a fiction which is useful.  like the 'I', 
#> the being about which we speak IS EXTANT.  it just constantly changes 
#> and therefore cannot be resolutely identified.

#The All is constant, if you consider it as the entirety of phenomena.

seems constant, don't it? :>

#Phenomena are relative to each other. The Whole is not relative, as
#there is no other referent, no other All.

what Whole?  what is beyond the boundary of the Whole?

#> #> then I claim it is ENTIRETY which is illusory!
#> #What will you name your new school of thought?  :)
#> its name is the Avidyana => Vehicle of Ignorance.
#A dogma? On my part I could have said Advaita, or Kashmiri Shaivism ...
#or Sufism.

dogma?  ah no, but another transducer.

#> #Is there a 'part' of a circle?
#> yes!  horseshoe.  semi-circle.  crescent.  curve.  point.
#These are not part of a circle. there is no part. If you break it, it is
#no longer a circle. You merely see a similarity in form, suggestive of a

'part of what once was a circle' is no longer either a circle or 'part of
a circle' in a strict sense, yes.

#I don't believe in god. 

'a god' or 'the God'?  there appears to be a difference between these two
idea-sets.  'a god' is a much more minor entity.  you probably mean (since
I mentioned it first in relation to your text) 'the God', which implies
some Big Self, the Prime Cause, your Consciousness.  I think you DO
believe in God in this sense, and think by eliminating the small i you
can BECOME (or return to being) that God.  I think this is madness,
though I understand Watts to argue something similar in _The Book_.

#You hold up relativism as an absolute, 

perhaps.  the inescapable limitation of language to approximate what is.
the discernment between eating the meal and eating the menu.

#and believe in the absolute reality of selves and their sequenced 
#and intended actions, though you pay lip service to relativism. 

bodies, minds, hearts, yes.  these are entirely real in the sense that
they exist now.  they are unreal in that they are limited and will

#You disregard true relativity which can only be engaged from the 
#standpoint of the whole. From the standpoint of the part, there is
#no standard referent from which to construct relative structures. 
#In plain Englais, it is necessary to have an absolute referent (the
#system as-a-whole) in order to derive meaningful and workable
#associations among its parts. As one of the parts, one has not the
#perpective to render a valid map. One is lost in the sea of relativism,
#and winds up using relatives as anchors, even momentarily, which renders
#them as absolute.
#In absolute relativism, relativity is relative. 
#Talk about swallowing your tail ...

even the concept of sunyata is itself empty, Nagarjuna says.  this does
not mean that the QUALITY of emptiness is nonexistent.  only that there
is no own being to perpetuate discrete objects of sense or conception.

"true relativity"?  "absolute relativity"?   perhaps you are painting
the Prime Cause, the Big Self, the Whole, which my relativism implies,
and I am disclaiming it as fiction on account of having no evidence
for it.  in this case your deconstruction of relativism as unable to
pick itself up by its own bootstraps (becoming absolute) is important.

even relativism is relative to absolutism.  just as absolutism is
relative to relativism.  the Big Self has no meaning without the
comparison of the small self.  neither affirms their reality.

#> #> show me this All before I expire.
#> #
#> #It is all around you. It is you.
#> that is the Many, yes.  
#yes indeeedy, because you have chopped it up with your mind. 

agreed.  and you have pieced it together in yours!

#You cannot let go of obviously temporary, and to your admission, 
#relative boundaries drawn through the whole.

You cannot let go of fabricated and projected entireties drawn
around the Many. ;>  I agree with your comment, even while I
do think I can let these go.  my intent was to hold onto Many
for the purposes of reflecting off your verbiage.

#No, I cannot speak from my All. And you cannot speak from your many. As
#for the rest, there is no proof.

this is very lovely.

#> claiming any of them are *more true* only displays one's bias.
#> -A; +A; -A+A; -(-A+A): Nagarjuna's categories of rational explication.
#> they each portray a self-consistent and beautifully-partial reflection
#> of experiential knowledge, none of them prior to the others.  in our
#> terms: NUL; ONE; MANY; NONDUAL.

#You take the Nul, the Many, the Non-dual, and the 'self-consistent and
#beautifully-partial reflections of experiential knowledge' look at it
#all from 'without' 

TOTAL OBJECTIVITY.  problem: being without, 'I' (big, small, whatever) 
ceases to exist.  there is no way to see it from there, always will the 
sight be faulty.

#and you see an All. 

the only way to see the One is from within.  without it, it was a 
false One.

#Nul is the only standpoint rendering this view. 

Nul renders no view!  Nul renders all views unto dissolution!

#To any self this remains untrue and unprovable. 

as all selves are fictions or shifting nerve-fibers with sparks of memory.

#> #> #I do not see how a droplet can alter the course
#> #> #of a river, when it is
#> #
#> #> boundaries are ILLUSORY, ...
#> #
#> #This is what I'm saying. Mind you, anything you can point to, including
#> #your self is an ad hoc set of boundaries.
#> the droplet, perfectly placed through the course of events, adds the
#> precise force necessary to turn the river's path. :>
#This can only happen in your mind because you are guilty of the unspoken
#assumption that you who place the droplet are outside the stream. In
#life you are yourself in the midst of it. 

note, I did not say *I* placed that droplet.  the droplet arrived at that
spot, entering the catalyzing role.  I did not place it there.  

#> #Reminds me of Shah's story of three men in a market, arguing over what
#> #to buy. Each of them spoke a different tongue and did not realize until
#> #they encountered a grape merchant that they were all looking for
#> #'grapes'. I think, my friend, you are looking for grapes.
#> I'm not looking for anything. 
#You would be dead if that were so.

perhaps I am dead then.

#> I am reflecting the extremity of your
#> statement into contrasting terms through the dim fluid of my experience. :>
#And I am extracting the essence of your position in the 
#rusted still of my own. :o


#> #> it flows to the sea!
#> #
#> #'it' ceases to be a discreet droplet.
#> it never was one!
#Relatively it was, this has been your position all along. And true it is
#in its own terms. Yet now when you say 'it never was one' you are
#referring to an All (Water) which you previously negated! 

no, I refer merely to the negation of a 'discreet droplet'.  this body
is not 'discreet', yet it has fluid boundaries which do exist.  the
paramecium may be discerned from the matter it consumes.  biology has
a basis in physical boundary-markings.

#> #> arising continuously in a spontaneous miasm.  our
#> #> puny concepts of cause and effect are as nothing before the torrential
#> #> onslaught of manifested chaos.
#> #Didn't you originally say:  "with planning, we can enter into the chain
#> #very early on, fabricating tremendous lattices ..." ???
#> #Are 'you' going to frabricate tremendous lattices against the torrential
#> #onslaught of manifest chaos? This has been my point all along. We have
#> #no chance.
#> WRONG! :>  we have no chance to be the ORIGINATING SOURCE OF CHANGE, but
#> we *do* have a chance to be the DECIDING FACTOR, 
#What if you're wrong on both counts?

if we do have a chance to be the originating source of change (subjectively
this is the entire focus of magick, btw), then this says nothing about the
value or enjoyability of becoming that source.  if we don't have a chance
to be a deciding factor in an event, then attempting to become one could
prove a futile endeavor.

#> our intention and motivation arising within in response to that 
#> beyond.  our CONCEPTS are as nothing before the chaos.  these are 
#> irrelevant to our role, however.

# Please define 'the chaos'. You have shifted from the pragmatic/relativistic 
# to an absolute which methinks stinks suspiciously
# like mine All.

'the chaos' is the shifting cosmos surrounding the sensing mechanism of
the body.  until we discern and imagine patterns within it, it is 'the
chaos'.  conceptualization assists us in damping our fear and coordinating
movement.  the All is real, but only from within.

#You are shopping for grapes ... as am i.

perhaps wine.

#In the way you stitch steps together into journeys, you can stitch
#phenomena into an All. 

and thoughts/feelings/sensations into an 'i'.  doesn't make it any
more real, tho.

#Conversely, if you call 'All' a ghost, your journey is one as well, 
#since all you know is the steps, the journey is an abstract.

exactly the case.  both useful fictions.

#> it will begin with 4997 AA1 Hail Satan! 
#Vide Supra. nyuk-nyuk ...


#> can't there be 'plans which do not result in their fruition on 
#> account of obstacles'?  
#That is the common view. You can go beyond it. I am sure of it. You must
#see how you, and your plans are projected, as are all phenomena. 


#All your rationalizations as to how this might not be so are also

you walk very carefully until.....

#A glimpse of this shatters the ego, releasing the contents
#into Space/Notness. 

there is no content!

#On returning, one is 'different'.Solve et Coagula.

one is dead and a pile of ash, a mechanism of projection.
perdurabo because sum is a result of cogito.


The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist:

Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small
donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site.

The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories,
each dealing with a different branch of
religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge.
Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit:
interdisciplinary: geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness
occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells
religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo
societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc.


There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):

Search For:
Match:  Any word All words Exact phrase


Southern Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo, including slave narratives & interviews
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice by cat yronwode: an introduction to African-American rootwork
Lucky W Amulet Archive by cat yronwode: an online museum of worldwide talismans and charms
Sacred Sex: essays and articles on tantra yoga, neo-tantra, karezza, sex magic, and sex worship
Sacred Landscape: essays and articles on archaeoastronomy, sacred architecture, and sacred geometry
Lucky Mojo Forum: practitioners answer queries on conjure; sponsored by the Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
Herb Magic: illustrated descriptions of magic herbs with free spells, recipes, and an ordering option
Association of Independent Readers and Rootworkers: ethical diviners and hoodoo spell-casters
Freemasonry for Women by cat yronwode: a history of mixed-gender Freemasonic lodges
Missionary Independent Spiritual Church: spirit-led, inter-faith, the Smallest Church in the World
Satan Service Org: an archive presenting the theory, practice, and history of Satanism and Satanists
Gospel of Satan: the story of Jesus and the angels, from the perspective of the God of this World
Lucky Mojo Usenet FAQ Archive: FAQs and REFs for occult and magical usenet newsgroups
Candles and Curios: essays and articles on traditional African American conjure and folk magic
Aleister Crowley Text Archive: a multitude of texts by an early 20th century ceremonial occultist
Spiritual Spells: lessons in folk magic and spell casting from an eclectic Wiccan perspective
The Mystic Tea Room: divination by reading tea-leaves, with a museum of antique fortune telling cups
Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology
Yronwode Home: personal pages of catherine yronwode and nagasiva yronwode, magical archivists
Lucky Mojo Magic Spells Archives: love spells, money spells, luck spells, protection spells, etc.
      Free Love Spell Archive: love spells, attraction spells, sex magick, romance spells, and lust spells
      Free Money Spell Archive: money spells, prosperity spells, and wealth spells for job and business
      Free Protection Spell Archive: protection spells against witchcraft, jinxes, hexes, and the evil eye
      Free Gambling Luck Spell Archive: lucky gambling spells for the lottery, casinos, and races