How do Satanists approach Shiva?

[Spirit_Warrior]

A few Christians believe that Shiva is actually Satan. Some of the reasons why they think he is Satan

1. The depictions of Shiva

2. The descriptions of Shiva as the destroyer god, the lord of serpents, the lord of darkness, as the terrible, fierce as one, and as the one that lives in graveyards

3. Shiva essentially represents the promise that Satan gave to Adam and Eve, that they too could become gods if they ate of the tree of knowledge. Shiva is a man that became the greatest of Gods through his pure efforts of meditation and penance.

4. Left hand path. The left path is associated with Shiva, the Naga sadhus, the Aghoris engage in extreme left hand practices which defy every taboo in mainstream Hinduism -- including meditating on dead corpses, eating human flesh, animal sacrifices(and some rare groups are known for human sacrifice too) indulging in intoxication and drugs, living in grave yards and fulfilling all your carnal desires.

I can sort of see why a Christian might think he is Satan. However, what do Satanists think?

 

[lovesong]

A few Christians believe that Shiva is actually Satan. Some of the reasons why they think he is Satan

1. The depictions of Shiva

That's Kali... not Shiva.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Lol, I was not sure, I got it from a web site claiming it was Bhairva, another form of Shiva! Although Kali is his consort!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Actually I think it is Shiva, as one of the hands contains a drum!

 

[Mindmaster]

I can sort of see why a Christian might think he is Satan. However, what do Satanists think?

I don't think much of Judeo-Christian syncretic understandings of other cultures. Their devil is their own invention and not even the devil that most Satanists are interested in, lol. As far as LHP, the eastern LHP and the western LHP are two non-related things, so there isn't much connection there.

Satanists, as a rule, really have no interest in eastern ideas/spiritual conceptions other than if they are just nerds on that subject. Satanism isn't really concerned with explaining the entire world, but rather giving one a vehicle to allow you to explain it by not filling your head with mythical boogiemen.

 

[Sutekh]

Satanism isn't really concerned with explaining the entire world, but rather giving one a vehicle to allow you to explain it by not filling your head with mythical boogiemen.

Satanism is also simple as well to keep in mind, the only problems I have on forgetting is Set and some Egyptian figures that I may use during ritual on occasions. It's been a while for me practicing Magick, it is interesting that when one practices Magick it changes the mind as if you start to believe that a force may exist but you aren't so sure, those are my own experiences. But what is strange for me is when I stop doing Magick I stop believing that those forces exist . You might as well say its just my subjective experiences.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's Kali... not Shiva.

No that's Shiva. Note the crescent moon upon the head. Although iconography wise an awful lot of it is Kali. In fact most of it is.

 

[lovesong]

No that's Shiva. Note the crescent moon upon the head. Although iconography wise an awful lot of it is Kali. In fact most of it is.

In a lot of the pictrures of her I can find, she also has the creasent moon on her forehead, but you obviously know much more about Hindu gods than I do, so I trust you!

 

[SomeRandom]

In a lot of the pictrures of her I can find, she also has the creasent moon on her forehead, but you obviously know much more about Hindu gods than I do, so I trust you!

Ah I see what you mean. See Kali sometimes has a crescent moon upon her forehead because it signifies her relationship with Shiva (at least in my tradition, I think.) Though more often than not it's merely painted on, not an actual moon. Shiva has the actual crescent moon in his hair or somewhere above his head, because according to legend he is the protector of the moon after taking care of it during it's waning cycle so as to not cause it to disappear forever.

 

[lovesong]

Ah I see what you mean. See Kali sometimes has a crescent moon upon her forehead because it signifies her relationship with Shiva (at least in my tradition, I think.) Though more often than not it's merely painted on, not an actual moon. Shiva has the actual crescent moon in his hair or somewhere above his head, because according to legend he is the protector of the moon after taking care of it during it's waning cycle so as to not cause it to disappear forever.

Oh ok! Thanks for that! I always love hearing these little snippets of info.

 

[SomeRandom]

Oh ok! Thanks for that! I always love hearing these little snippets of info.

No problem.

 

[Sutekh]

I find Kali to be very attractive, I wish Kali was my lover as a succubus.

 

[Terese]

That's Kali... not Shiva.

That's super duper Bhairava

 

[Liu]

Satanists, as a rule, really have no interest in eastern ideas/spiritual conceptions other than if they are just nerds on that subject. Satanism isn't really concerned with explaining the entire world, but rather giving one a vehicle to allow you to explain it by not filling your head with mythical boogiemen.

That might be true "as a rule", but then I'll be the exception. And while many Satanists might not be that interested in eastern religions, Shiva and Kali certainly are those Hindu deities that are most popular among us, even if only because they are "dark".

For me at least, Shiva and Kali are among those divine concepts that I take inspiration from and even use as other names for my own deity, to refer to specific aspects of it.

I must admit that I don't know that much about how they are venerated by actual Hindus, but it's pretty difficult to get reliable information on that as every single village in India seems to have different beliefs.

So my own interpretation of Shiva comes from those two kinds of Hinduism that I'm most familiar with (not that this would say much):

• The dualism of Shiva as conciousness and Kali/Shakti as the universe/nature/matter. Thereby they represent not only the whole of existence, but also those two polarities which both are venerated by different kinds of Satanists (e.g. by Setians and Gnostics on one hand, and by LaVeyans on the other) but which I prefer to see both as aspects of the divine which I call Satan.
  
• Advaita, the belief that there is only one deity and everything is a manifestation of it. There is a Shaivaite version of this in which this deity is identified with Shiva. The spiritual goal of this tradition would be to recognize oneself (and the rest of the world) as manifestation of Shiva.
  That feels pretty close to the self-deification we (western) LHPers aim for, as well as to the fact that some of us belief Satan to be both internal (as a part of ourselves, and/or we of it) and external (representing the material world).

Probably my summaries are pretty flawed, so those here who are more knowledgeable on it than I am, please correct me.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

@Liu I found this amazing perspective from a satanist on youtube, which I want to share with you as what you say is so close:

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Satanists, as a rule, really have no interest in eastern ideas/spiritual conceptions other than if they are just nerds on that subject. Satanism isn't really concerned with explaining the entire world, but rather giving one a vehicle to allow you to explain it by not filling your head with mythical boogiemen.

I do question this Western-Eastern dichotomy. I use to think that West and East are worlds apart and never the twain shall meet. But then I was young and naive, and hadn't studied history. I then discovered actually at one point West and East was Eurasia and the common Indo-European/Aryan ancestry we have. I think the West and East have a lot in common, with the epicentre of the West in Greco-Roman culture and the epicentre of East in India. There seems to have been considerable blood transfusion between them.

Now, what has got me thinking recently, is the massive similarity between Shiva and Satan, and actually it made me sympathetic to Satan, as I was under Christian notions that Satan is the embodiment of all evil and Satan worshippers were all evil. I mentioned some of the similarities in the OP, but there are some historical similarities, Shiva the horned God appears earliest in the Pasupati seals in the Indus Valley around 3000BCE, and then the same motif appears on the Gundestrup cauldron. Too similar to ignore.

The idea of self-deification which is central in Hinduism is an idea that is completely opposed to Abrahamic thought, to the extent that historically you would even get killed for ever expressing identity with God. This idea that one can challenge God, is something the Abrahamics consider to be Satan. Yet, in Hinduism, Shiva does exactly that, he challenges all gods to become the greatest of God. I wonder, if this is just an ideological and philosophical difference, or does it point to some ancient rivalry between Vedic Hindus and the Abrahamic civilisations, which we can trace back to the Sumerian part of the world (my geography is pretty bad, but they are around the same region I think)

In the OT part of the bible the idea of yourself becoming a god is condemned as the greatest evil and Satan is condemned for deceiving Adam and Eve with that promise that if they ate from the tree of knowledge they would become gods and immortal. When I actually read the original story in the bible I realised something, it literally jumped at me and hit me in the face --- Satan did not lie! Indeed, after they ate from the tree of knowledge, they did become immortal, and the God/s said pretty much to the effect "Oh no, now Adam and Eve will become just like us(notice plural us, elohim), and then eventually challenge us" and henceforth they were banished. This means Satan was right, if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would become gods themselves and immortal. In fact, on the contrary it makes the God of the OT sound like he is jealous, scheming, insecure and spiteful. If there is anybody evil in the OT it is the God of the OT --- he is constantly smiting tribe after tribe down, demanding murder and genocide -- Satan actually comes out looking good. Heil Satan.

The other irony is that the God of the OT did not want Adam and Eve to get knowledge and Hinduism is the Vedic religion, the knowledge religion. Then by Abrahamic definitions we clearly meet every criteria of being satanic and Shiva being the main symbol of self-deification our Satan.

Putting on speculation hat. It makes me wonder if there was some kind historical rivalry between the Indus Valley civilisation and the Sumerians. Two major civilisations at the time, completely different cultures and ideologies, totally different languages. The wars described in the Hindu epics of the battles between Devas and Asuras, could it be historical battles between Indians and Sumerians? Why would the Abrahamic religion almost sound like the complete inversion of the Brahminc religion?

 

[Liu]

Thank you. I probably have seen that video before (I've seen most of the videos on that channel), but only after coming to my conclusion which I mentioned above. It's nice to see others having found the same independent of oneself.

And welcome to Satanism, I guess

Regarding the Sumerians, I wouldn't equate them with the Abrahamic faiths, they were pretty different in their theology. The Abrahamics took some myths from them into the OT, but changed them around quite a bit, so if the opposition you mention actually goes back to a historical rivalry (and didn't simply happen randomly), then it must rather have been between Semitics and Indo-Europeans.

Also, I have heard that this goal of self-deification would not be very common in mainstream Hinduism, but only in some specific sects. Which might be why many here think that the western LHP has not much to do with Hinduism since Hindus wouldn't actually aim for self-deification or, if they do, mean something completely different than we.

 

[Liu]

Btw, you may want to take a look into Zoroastrianism if you are interested in the historic view. Those were Indo-Iranians, like the speakers of Sanskrit, and many of their mythological characters are the same. Just, they inverted it, claiming almost all the Hindu gods are demons and making Ahura Mazda their new god. It is widely believed that the monotheistic, dogmatic, jealous-god aspects of the Abrahamic religions, as well as their concept of Satan, stem from contact with Zoroastrianism. But I don't know where the Zoroastrians got their dogmatism from.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Regarding the Sumerians, I wouldn't equate them with the Abrahamic faiths, they were pretty different in their theology. The Abrahamics took some myths from them into the OT, but changed them around quite a bit, so if the opposition you mention actually goes back to a historical rivalry (and didn't simply happen randomly), then it must rather have been between Semitics and Indo-Europeans.

I agree that the rivalry is probably better explained as between Semitics and Indo-Europeans, but I do wonder what was the relationship between the Sumerians and the Semitics, do they share linguistic, cultural and historical similarities? I know Sumerian myths appear in the OT. Are they roughly around the same area?

I wonder if ancient Persia is the link between that rivalry. There definitely seems to be an indication that some point the Iranian-Aryans and the Indo-Aryans split from one another, as you mentioned there is a complete inversion of the Asuras and Devas. There is also evidence to suggest that the Zoroastrian ideas found their way into the Semitic culture and inspired their theology, so I wonder if it does indeed point to some rivalry between the Semites and the Indo-European, particularly Indian civilisation.

Also, I have heard that this goal of self-deification would not be very common in mainstream Hinduism, but only in some specific sects. Which might be why many here think that the western LHP has not much to do with Hinduism since Hindus wouldn't actually aim for self-deification or, if they do, mean something completely different than we.

It is all pervasive in Hinduism in fact, not just limited to a few sects. The idea that we are identical with God pervades across Hinduism. It is declared very boldly in the Upanishads in what are called the great sayings/statements: "You are that, My self is God, I am God, You are God" It is encoded in all our gestures like when we say "namaste" it means that the God within my greets the God within you. When Apoloniyus when to India, the sages told him, "We believe that we are gods" The entire religion of Jainism, which is an off-shoot of Hinduism and is very closely intertwined with Hinduism, is fully premised on the idea that we can all become gods through spiritual practice and does not accept any single monotheistic God. Hinduism is premised on the idea of spiritual evolution which Hindu scripture says "Ranges from a blade of grass to Lord Brahma" i.e., we believe that one day we will evolve to the highest level of creator-lord. Advaita, which is one of the most popular schools of Hinduism, emphatically declares Atman = Brahman, there is absolutely no difference between the Self and God.

Edit: Just to correct it was Apolloniyus not Plotonius

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

There are other schools of thought like dvaita(Self and God are absolutely different) and visheshadvaita(Self and God are part and parcel of one another, but not identical) and bhedabehda(different and non different at the same time) but generally Advaita like understanding is more popular, especially in modern Hinduism.