Do Shiva and Shakti really have a place in Satanism?

[EtuMalku]

Kapalika, I have a way of stating things as if they are fact, it's one of those beneficial faults

Maybe you could briefly explain how your belief system works, how Satanism and Tantra go hand in hand and what your ultimate goal would be following this specific Path?

 

[Kapalika]

Who was this topic made about then if not me? I have literally found no one else in all the years I've practiced that combines these two religions anywhere, not IRL, not online and not on the forums. At most a nod or interest like @Liu but even that is rather exceptional in my experience.

This is a DIR, not a debate section. No one has the right to preach at me or say my practice isn't Left Hand Path or Satanism or whatever in the Satanism DIR even if they think it's "just the facts". There are rules to this site. Satanism teaches to respect the domains/dens of others.

If anyone has a real interest they can PM me.

 

[Kapalika]

One last thing that bugged me, I just want to say on real fast.

Satanism & Left-Hand Tantra

It's worth noting this source says there is only straight up evil worshippers and LaVeyans as Satanists. So ya, trying to say those are equivalent to Tantra would be wrong. But it's also not relevant since I mixed my original theistic Satanism with Tantra that lined up perfectly with it. As me and others have shown consistently there is more to Satanism than just LaVeyans and people who worship evil of which the latter doesn't sincerely exist in any notable form.

 

[EtuMalku]

Who was this topic made about then if not me? I have literally found no one else in all the years I've practiced that combines these two religions anywhere, not IRL, not online and not on the forums. At most a nod or interest like @Liu but even that is rather exceptional in my experience.

This is a DIR, not a debate section. No one has the right to preach at me or say my practice isn't Left Hand Path or Satanism or whatever in the Satanism DIR even if they think it's "just the facts". There are rules to this site. Satanism teaches to respect the domains/dens of others.

If anyone has a real interest they can PM me.

You found no one else? Take a better look, there are plenty out there, in fact Nicholas Schrek wrote an entire book about it.

 

[EtuMalku]

One last thing that bugged me, I just want to say on real fast.



It's worth noting this source says there is only straight up evil worshippers and LaVeyans as Satanists. So ya, trying to say those are equivalent to Tantra would be wrong. But it's also not relevant since I mixed my original theistic Satanism with Tantra that lined up perfectly with it. As me and others have shown consistently there is more to Satanism than just LaVeyans and people who worship evil of which the latter doesn't sincerely exist in any notable form.

I / we are still waiting to hear the definition of your Belief System and what is its ultimate goal.

 

[Kapalika]

You found no one else? Take a better look, there are plenty out there, in fact Nicholas Schrek wrote an entire book about it.

He is a tantric Buddhist, NOT a Kashmir Shaivite and Satanist. I've known of his transition to Buddhism and the book however admittedly I hadn't actually read it through. The book is actually about tantra in general and the LHP. I took the liberty of getting a PDF and searching "Kapalika" and it only had 8 references all within 4 pages and then Kaula only had 30 references not all of which were strictly about Kashmir Shaivism Kaula. So he touched on the topic lightly. No section was specifically about Shaivism and when he mentioned Shakti over twice as many times as Shiva which tells me he was talking about Shakta much more often which rarely even has Shiva in it (some have him in a very minor role). So hardly a book's worth.

Kashmir Shaivism (aka Trika, Kaula, Krama, Kapalikas, Spanda ect) is actually relatively obscure and only came into academic light a few decades ago. The surviving lineages were underground for 700 years until it's recent revival.

In either case Schrek is not a Kashmir Shaivite Satanist or even a Shiva-Shakti one. So yes, no one else.

I / we are still waiting to hear the definition of your Belief System and what is its ultimate goal.

I would of explained my religion if I was asked in a more respectful way than this topic.

 

[Kapalika]

Have it your way then . . . so now you're on about Kashmir Shaivism?

... When wasn't I in this topic? I have been since my first post in the thread.

As for the rest that's one viewpoint. Also it has this strong vibe of some other northern Indian traditions such as the Pandits of Kashmir Valley proper (most very recently exiled by Muslims) or Siddhanta (which originated in the North but moved south later on) that are not what most mean by Kashmir Shaivism which is generally to mean things like Trika, Spanda, Kaula, Krama and Pratyabhijna. Kashmir Shaivism is a misnomer not a descriptive term usually. It can be used descriptively which can add to the confusion since you can pretty much add any historical Shaivite group. That's why it's often called Trika as well to distinguish it more.

As for the rest I don't think you can make that judgement for every system. I've seen compatible ones before.

Edit: added link

 

[Kapalika]

If you want a serious discussion of this and how it relates to Satanism I could start a new thread.

I'll actually do that anyway in a bit.

 

[EtuMalku]

Have it your way then . . . so now you're on about Kashmir Shaivism?
"The attainment of Sivatva is the complete merger in Siva. The characteristics of Saivism are the exaltations of Siva above all other gods, the highly concrete conception of the deity and a close relationship between Sivaand his devotees. On the one hand, Siva is identified with the eternal Absolute. On the other hand, he is the God of all gods, potent for good and evil. He is " Girish ", " Ishan " and " Maheshwara " the supreme Lord."
____________________________________
Kashmir Saivism by Subhash Kak

While it is true that both heterodoxy and antinomianism bounce off of something, that's where it ends however. The heterodoxy of the eastern paths seeks separation in order to experience the Divine better. Antinomianism is Jungian individuation, it seeks separation in order to experience one's Self better.

The so-called left handed goals of the east are different than that of the west. Shaivism is not Satanism nor is it Luciferianism, Setian or a Niner philosophy. Are you trying to experience some lord Satan better or are you trying to experience the better you?

It's not the same because the West approaches self-deification differently than in the East. The East works through heterodoxy means and is reliant on cultural norms to go against / the West seeks subjective norms of Antinomy, the East is reliant on the idea of deity / the West scoffs at the idea of deity and places one's isolate consciousness at the throne.

 

[EtuMalku]

I'm getting tired of these posts and topics/threads bashing the ORIGINAL Left Hand Path.

Anyways I'm a practicing Satanist and LHP Tantra. As far as I am aware I'm really about the only one that takes that association seriously as a core component of my beliefs. I've never run across another Satanist-Hindu other than some blog I came across many years ago but they were much more Vedic. And I'm fairly certain I'm the only one on the forums that does so explicitly and consistently in any serious manner consistently and clearly doing this type of thing.

But maybe I'm wrong, I know @Liu has an interest in LHP Dharma paths but it seems more of a scholarly interest. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

However in advance I want to say that if I seem somewhat hostile it's because this is essentially an attack on the validity of my religion and not really anyone else's with that all in mind in a DIR... @EtuMalku can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he's not even a Satanist and @agorman has explored Satanism before but I've not seen much stating or indicating he does practice Satanism. That makes the responses so far unsettling to me.



This isn't true. There isn't any merging and the ego destruction is about shattering illusions which is in Shiva's domain. Satan shares this too... need we remember that the Serpent broke Adam and Eve's imprisonment by destroying their ignorance? Likewise Shiva destroys our ignorance that chains us. It's harder to make them much similar in that respect.

Ego in the context of Hinduism is totally different from the go of western psychology. It's more of a matter of not having any word that translates the best.



I've never heard of her being his daughter either, although she's often depicted as his mother as well as consort.



There are forms like Bhairava that are even darker. Particularly a lot of more obscure Tantric deities depicted doing all kinds of scary stuff. The Fierce deities.



This is actually very inline with Trika! Though I think Shiva is thought to be beyond Cit but it's very close none the less even for a lot of Hinduism to see the male and female in those roles.

I'd say you are spot on.



Yes. The ego is the illusion we create around ourselves. That self-actualization is our realization of selfhood which by nature was always divine... hence in Trika/Kashmir Shaivism the realization that one is Shiva.



It's a can of worms at times. I think it's important though that the Freudian/western definition of ego is totally different from what it means in the context of Hinduism. I think that is where a lot of confusion and misunderstanding comes from.



A good point, but bears mentioning this is true of nondual Shaiva Tantra. The more popular dualsitic Tantra that can be either LHP or RHP says that one realizes themselves as a distinct Shiva. In some ways this is just a subtle difference in that respect since in Kashmir Shaiva Tantra all the enlightened individuals are simultaneously nondual and still individualized.

But Trika, Kashmir Shaivism ect saw itself as being the next step after Shaiva Siddhanta so it makes sense it would be the more evolved and developed version.



Take your misinformation elsewhere and stop attacking Vamachara, LHP-Tantra ect by saying crap like it's RHP. If anything the "Eastern LHP" is the real one and your version is an imperialistic, culturally misappropriated version. There is no "merging" you are what you are and it's that realization that brings power, insight and liberation.

We just happen to call that state Shiva.



It doesn't "integrate" anything. You consistently fail to understand the premise of Tantra let alone the Left Hand Path as it's been for centuries either dual or nondual. Again, one is who and what they are, it's about seeing reality as it truly is.

You are however correct in that the RHP seeks to see reality as it really is, however the LHP would disagree with a lot of the RHP and orthodox views on the nature of said reality. So in that sense it's very different.

In some ways those views of reality can be very transgressive to the orthodoxy.



Is that what you really think? It just sounds like self-image actualization to me. And I think you got those two mixed up in different aspects. But you probably have no interest in hearing a viewpoint outside of the dogma of your own order.[

The Right Hand Path, Left Hand Path and the Fundamental Characteristics of a Left Hand Path Practitioner

 

[Liu]

The Right Hand Path, Left Hand Path and the Fundamental Characteristics of a Left Hand Path Practitioner

Your essay?
I have to disagree with Flowers' text being "largely value neutral". Well, "value neutral" it might perhaps be, but it's at least not "worldview neutral". Right at the beginning of your quote from it, it is based on a distinguishment of subjective and objective universe - that's very typical for his own worldview as a Setian, but not necessarily applicable to other worldviews. And therefore also his definition of what is a LHPer is necessarily flawed.
What the last quote there describes however in nearly all points sounds very much in tune with what I currently read on the history of the Indian vāmācāra in Jan Fries' book "Kālī Kaula". The only detail that doesn't fit is the part "not because he or she was “divine” to begin with" - but "divine" is a matter of definition anyway.

 

[EtuMalku]

Your essay?
I have to disagree with Flowers' text being "largely value neutral". Well, "value neutral" it might perhaps be, but it's at least not "worldview neutral". Right at the beginning of your quote from it, it is based on a distinguishment of subjective and objective universe - that's very typical for his own worldview as a Setian, but not necessarily applicable to other worldviews. And therefore also his definition of what is a LHPer is necessarily flawed.
What the last quote there describes however in nearly all points sounds very much in tune with what I currently read on the history of the Indian vāmācāra in Jan Fries' book "Kālī Kaula". The only detail that doesn't fit is the part "not because he or she was “divine” to begin with" - but "divine" is a matter of definition anyway.

No, this is not my essay.
World views change, and IMO the confusion between eastern and western LHP needs to also. The eastern version, whether Tantra or Shaivism (which both claim to be LHP) is simply another RHP route to the same destination as Dakshinachara. The foundation of, and what differentiates western from eastern LHP is Individual Self-Deification, not any form of merger with something perceived to be separate and/or greater than the individual self. It literally is the idea that you are god and not a part of one.

 

[Liu]

No, this is not my essay.

I assumed it would be since you pasted it without further comment in two threads.

World views change, and IMO the confusion between eastern and western LHP needs to also. The eastern version, whether Tantra or Shaivism (which both claim to be LHP) is simply another RHP route to the same destination as Dakshinachara. The foundation of, and what differentiates western from eastern LHP is Individual Self-Deification, not any form of merger with something perceived to be separate and/or greater than the individual self. It literally is the idea that you are god and not a part of one.

But how could such a rigid definition make sense when we all have such different views of what we consider self-deification?

The views I encountered so far (by contemporary western LHPers) range from purely physicalist ideas of self-improvement and of leading a self-determined lifestyle, to completely spiritual goals of training one's psychic powers to become a deity in the afterlife, and from believing in no deities whatsoever to believing that self-deification is only possible with the help of other deities.
Gnostic Satanists even have a merger of all back into the primal chaos as their spiritual goal and call that self-deification, which seems much farther from what you call so than what can be found in India.

As long as we don't even know whether a physicalist or a spiritual worldview are better models for describing reality all these approaches seem to be valid to me.

Btw, Tantra and Shaivism are overlapping terms, and also only a small part of each claim to be LHP. Both are not coherent groups at all, even if only counting the LHPers, so to say that they'd all have the same destination as Indian RHPers is over-simplifying considering that they all have very different goals on their own already.
There are advaitas, dvaitas and combinations and negations of both on either path.

It literally is the idea that you are god and not a part of one.

Why not both? Or rather, as I understand it, advaita Shaivism/Tantra is about being an incarnation of god. Just, everyone and everything else is, too. And so the quest is about getting more aware of it to become able to actually make use of it.

TL/DR: Neither in the west nor in the east LHPers can be grouped together by their worldview and goals.

You can try to make a definition of the LHP based on a specific worldview, but it won't neccesarily apply to anyone but your group.

If I were to define what the LHP is to me, it would be something along the lines of treating a spiritual path without dogmatically clinging to a given tradition but instead by focusing on and experimenting with what works for oneself, and thereby either disregarding or outright opposing mainstream morality.

 

[EtuMalku]

You can try to make a definition of the LHP based on a specific worldview, but it won't neccesarily apply to anyone but your group.

You may be right here, these are all simply theories, including mine, so no one really knows. Everyone loses their **** when I talk about 'western' left hand path and such, perhaps I'll just keep my theory exclusive to our Order and let everyone else define LHP as they want.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***Mod: Thread moved out of Dir into Same Faith Debates.***