Dharmic Luciferian Transtheism?

[StarryNightshade]

Some questions I have regarding this particular left-hand path.

1.) One can technically be a theistic or non-theistic Luciferian if that is what they wish. However, given the God concept I do believe in, as well as details I have read from Luciferians on this forum, Luciferianism seems almost Transtheisitc in nature. Transtheism states that God is beyond atheism or theism and can be knowable by experience and knowledge (at least as I understand it). Would you agree that Luciferianism is Transtheistic in some ways?

2.) Can one mix Dharmic practices (mainly Hindu and Mahayana Buddhist) with Luciferianism? This includes going to temple, participating in holidays, worshipping the gods as concepts, etc.?

3.) How are reincarnation and nirvana (both concepts I believe in) regarded in Luciferianism?

4.) Unrelated question: what do you think is the biggest misconception about Luciferianism?

 

[1137]

Honestly such questions can only be answered based on personal belief, I can't just link you our website like xeper.org because, well it doesn't exist.

1) Based on your explanation of the term I completely disagree. To me, Luciferianism is about knowledge, and since we cannot know whether god exists or not, the question of God's existence is rather irrelevant to me. I certainly do not believe we can know god nor that spiritual experience hold any objective merit.

2) I don't see why not.

3) You'll have to define nirvana. I believe a sort of enlightenment exists that must be tirelessly worked for over the course of our lives. Personally, I use the tree of life "serpent of wisdom" as one of my main guidelines. Even if it holds no objective truth it will still lead to a better life style and a goal to strive for. Further, I strive for three fold enlightenment, not just one goal but three to work for at a time. On of my greatest symbols is Thoth who is thrice great, where I get this concept from. Tree of life, inner alchemy, successful magick. Thus 777 for me has double meaning.

As for reincarnation, I look at it two ways. First, if there is an underlying spiritual force to the universe I believe it's energy within my matter will recycle. However, even as an agnostic I lean more atheisticly, where my second view is that all the matter that is "me" recycles. Not sure of this constitutes reincarnation.

4) The biggest misconception is that we are some highly unified group like the Setians or some Satanic organizations out there, that you can understand my position by reading a single set of texts or essays.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Being that Luciferianism is a highly individual path, there's no clear answer to your questions. We create our own path as we go. We have extremely varying views on what Luciferianism is or what it means. So the answer to your questions can be anything, depending on the person.

Pretty much the only things I would say most Luciferians have in common is the belief in the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, scientific and artistic progression and betterment of humanity and enlightenment with apotheosis as our goal. Some of us work with or worship spiritual beings (Gods, Daemons, etc.) and practice ritual magick and some don't. I could see Luciferianism being combined with other religions, such as the Dharmic religions in your example. There's no right or wrong way to go about it. We tend to view such things as tools for use in the advancement of our personal goals, really.

But I can say I believe in reincarnation! I believe life is an eternal journey of learning and refinement, until we reach the state of Godhood, which I think is something we all end up reaching but some just don't "get it". But eternity is a long time to be able to eventually get it right! I do believe there is a Divine force/Mind/Ultimate Reality and that our consciousnesses have emerged from that. So I do believe in "God", but I also believe there's many other Gods who were born from that Reality, as we are Gods in training. Who knows, really? To me, the most important thing is to follow your own Will. If there is indeed a conscious divine Ultimate Reality that is responsible for this universe, surely it gave birth to us in order to experience itself through our individual perceptions and grows as we grow. Ultimately, I believe this reality, this universe is an experiment and eventually the experiment will end at the physical death of the universe. Then it might restart!

Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law & Every man and woman is a star. - Crowley

 

[MrOmega]

Wow guys, is this a fallen angel theory, shattered egos and spiritual energies convecting between hell and middles earths?

What gets me, is Prometheus style plays, where the very act of gaining knowledge is where one falls from grace.

Is knowledge the forbidden fruit, or is ascension or entry into the unknown the forbidden fruit?

God => Magic => The Big Bang

 

[1137]

Actually the greatest misconception is probably that Lucifer and Satan are synonymous. Sad really, considering how easy it is to show that this is simply not the case, even if you adhere to the uneducated belief that Satan is some specific evil entity rather than a title of one testing a believer's faith / worth.

 

[Mindmaster]

Actually the greatest misconception is probably that Lucifer and Satan are synonymous. Sad really, considering how easy it is to show that this is simply not the case, even if you adhere to the uneducated belief that Satan is some specific evil entity rather than a title of one testing a believer's faith / worth.

Actually, as a collective archetype this has nearly always been true for as long as some branch of Christianity has been the dominate religion (read: a very long freaking time). Thus, whatever concept you have magically and as far as the collective goes would be irrelevant. That egregore basically supersedes any other real use of the name. This is like saying Mephistopheles or Old Nick aren't Satan. Regardless of what these names used to be the collective understanding of a name empowers certain functions. It may have been something else in the past, but it doesn't matter now - at least in an archetypal/metaphysical context. All of these names are currently synonymous.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, as a collective archetype this has nearly always been true for as long as some branch of Christianity has been the dominate religion (read: a very long freaking time). Thus, whatever concept you have magically and as far as the collective goes would be irrelevant. That egregore basically supersedes any other real use of the name. This is like saying Mephistopheles or Old Nick aren't Satan. Regardless of what these names used to be the collective understanding of a name empowers certain functions. It may have been something else in the past, but it doesn't matter now - at least in an archetypal/metaphysical context. All of these names are currently synonymous.

Thank you for the vocabulary lesson.
It seems that the egregore concept is what nash8 and I were going round & round about regarding collectivism and labels on the other thread. (So much language yet to learn...)

 

[Mindmaster]

Thank you for the vocabulary lesson.
It seems that the egregore concept is what nash8 and I were going round & round about regarding collectivism and labels on the other thread. (So much language yet to learn...)

More likely than not it was inspired by something I read on magical servitors earlier in the day. I understand that that conversation is something completely different. Basically these thoughtforms start as blobs of emotive energy, after being fed gain types of consciousness, and then if fed over and over again in a collective sense become an egregore. If that grew to the next stage it would be what people would consider a god basically. Needless to say... it is fun to shift ones paradigm and play with the fabric of reality.

 

[crossfire]

More likely than not it was inspired by something I read on magical servitors earlier in the day. I understand that that conversation is something completely different, but therein was the inspiration. Basically these thoughtforms start as blobs of emotive energy, after being fed gain types of consciousness, and then if fed over and over again in a collective sense become an egregore. If that grew to the next stage it would be what people would consider a god basically. Needless to say... it is fun to shift ones paradigm and play with the fabric of reality.

He was emphasizing what the Church would label Antichrist, (egregore) whereas I was emphasizing the actions of the group (knowing it for what it is.)
He was emphasizing collective power, whereas I was emphasizing individual discernment. Both of us agreed that the Church would persecute relatively good guys, but I preferred identify the scapegoaters as Antichrist, whereas he preferred to use the Egregore label applied by the church to identify Antichrist.

 

[Mindmaster]

He was emphasizing what the Church would label Antichrist, (egregore) whereas I was emphasizing the actions of the group (knowing it for what it is.)
He was emphasizing collective power, whereas I was emphasizing individual discernment. Both of us agreed that the Church would persecute relatively good guys, but I preferred identify the scapegoaters as Antichrist, whereas he preferred to use the Egregore label applied by the church to identify Antichrist.

Something that achieves that status is now something independent of the church and sentient. By definition such a creature is autonomous and no longer an idea. Think about the psychic energy devoted to filling the hive mind with hellfire in Lucifer's name and you catch my drift. There are millions of people feeding that type of energy to this being and there is just no way to tip the scale. For as long as someone has thumped the bible pumping rage into this someone else has been cavorting on the ground and kissing the devils buttocks and feeding the essence of the forbidden and carnal to it as well.

Dharma as a concept is about keeping order and righteousness which in short are the precise definition of dogma. All paths that exhibit dogma fail the LHP sanity check. Certain paths are lightly flirting with it (Setians) others are off in the deep end (LaVey Satanists) the minute you are sure that your path is the only way you've hoped aboard the dogma train and historically people don't get off. They just get more extreme in view, and more abrasive to those that don't see the vision or whatever.

 

[crossfire]

Something that achieves that status is now something independent of the church and sentient. By definition such a creature is autonomous and no longer an idea. Think about the psychic energy devoted to filling the hive mind with hellfire in Lucifer's name and you catch my drift. There are millions of people feeding that type of energy to this being and there is just no way to tip the scale. For as long as someone has thumped the bible pumping rage into this someone else has been cavorting on the ground and kissing the devils buttocks and feeding the essence of the forbidden and carnal to it as well.

This sounds very much like what Buddhists call Maara.

Dharma as a concept is about keeping order and righteousness which in short are the precise definition of dogma. All paths that exhibit dogma fail the LHP sanity check. Certain paths are lightly flirting with it (Setians) others are off in the deep end (LaVey Satanists) the minute you are sure that your path is the only way you've hoped aboard the dogma train and historically people don't get off. They just get more extreme in view, and more abrasive to those that don't see the vision or whatever.

I would say that dogma is more of a top-down collectivist approach. Dhamma is something that each individual must investigate and test for themselves, then integrate into themselves before it has real power. You fix your own mind first--and everyone has different mental hang-ups--so there are innumberable dhamma doors through which beings may enter into sanity.

 

[Mindmaster]

But, what determines if one's mind is broken? If it is via your own travels that you discover your failings and work to repair them that's fine, but if it is based on the standards of another's teachings or the status quo then you can go no further and still be LHP. I find Dharma extremely incompatible with Left concepts due to the underlying precepts and operating assumptions. If you can explain how it could work I'll bite, but I see these as completely different sides of the spectrum and rather irreconcilable.

Dharma is really about keeping things the way they're "supposed" to be. In fact, that's really just the English meaning of the word. The LHP is about breaking down every single ideology of this sort. If "how things are supposed to be" is not in fact determined by oneself then you've jumped off the boat. If you re-frame this into an individualistic expression of the concept you basically using the term improperly.

 

[crossfire]

But, what determines if one's mind is broken? If it is via your own travels that you discover your failings and work to repair them that's fine, but if it is based on the standards of another's teachings or the status quo then you can go no further and still be LHP. I find Dharma extremely incompatible with Left concepts due to the underlying precepts and operating assumptions. If you can explain how it could work I'll bite, but I see these as completely different sides of the spectrum and rather irreconcilable.

Dharma is really about keeping things the way they're "supposed" to be. In fact, that's really just the English meaning of the word. The LHP is about breaking down every single ideology of this sort.

There is a difference between the Vedic definition of Dharma and the Shramanic Dhamma. Vedic Dharma is more authoritarian and collective in nature--stressing duty. Shramanic Dhamma is more focused on the individual--developing discernment and breaking ingrained patterns of habit (kamma/karma) within the mind that lead to unskillful action and suffering. In other words--if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and get bad results, but expect anything different without breaking those patterns, isn't that the definition of insanity?

If "how things are supposed to be" is not in fact determined by oneself then you've jumped off the boat. If you re-frame this into an individualistic expression of the concept you basically using the term improperly.

Actually, in Buddhism there is what is called developing the dhamma eye, which means you have individually examined and tested that by breaking these bad habits you do indeed experience less unnecessary suffering and greater development of the mind, and know this for yourself.

"By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." is a line from the Dhammapada chapter called "The Self." It is immediately followed by this line: "Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good." In other words, you have to attend to your own mind first by "clearly understanding one's own welfare." I don't see this as being unindividualistic at all. It is placing the responsibility for your own mind squarely on your own shoulders.

 

[Iti oj]

Actually, as a collective archetype this has nearly always been true for as long as some branch of Christianity has been the dominate religion (read: a very long freaking time). Thus, whatever concept you have magically and as far as the collective goes would be irrelevant. That egregore basically supersedes any other real use of the name. This is like saying Mephistopheles or Old Nick aren't Satan. Regardless of what these names used to be the collective understanding of a name empowers certain functions. It may have been something else in the past, but it doesn't matter now - at least in an archetypal/metaphysical context. All of these names are currently synonymous.

Look up lucifer in the catholic dictonary,

 

[Mindmaster]

Look up lucifer in the catholic dictonary,

The academic correctness was never the issue. It is the common use that matters. There are a lot of things that the churches know are incorrect in the bible or the public understands differently and they largely "just go with it".

If you say Lucifer to most people south of the mason-dixon or even going east these figures are the same guy. For most of the Christian world in the USA that's the case. The stuff isn't really weird -- most of Mexico at leasts acknowledges and largely follow Santa Muerta as much as Jesus. There are large variations from the canon everywhere.