Satanism

[Selski]

Our true self is the pure universal mind, not our everyday mind which is rambling and moving here and there, which we listen to and follow endlessly. The Universal mind is that part of your mind that is not tainted by delusion.
Takes a while of watching the mind and you will notice that part of it that has always been there, watching, not the restless part that is always moving.

Well said MindFreak.

 

Sarah

[MisterJingo]

Our true self is the pure universal mind, not our everyday mind which is rambling and moving here and there, which we listen to and follow endlessly. The Universal mind is that part of your mind that is not tainted by delusion.
Takes a while of watching the mind and you will notice that part of it that has always been there, watching, not the restless part that is always moving.

Without EGO there would be no ‘I’ or watching, or awareness of everything. I’ve often wondered if this desire to return to some base state of unconsciousness (which returning to the source would be*) is misguided. To quote an idea I find interesting:

I read an interesting book by Ken Wilber called 'Up From Eden' where he uses the Jewish creation myth to describe a particular stage of the evolution of human consciousness. As the title of his book suggests, Wilber does not see a “fall" from this perfected Edenic state after eating from the Tree of Knowledge  of Good and Evil but rather the reverse. To him, Adam and Eve in Eden represent mankind in the unconcious pre-personal/pre-egoic state...basically the state of mind of most animals. However, he makes an important distinction and says this state is not the ideal state. Seeing it as an ideal state is a view which he calls "the pre-trans fallacy", that being: confusing an unconscious pre-personal state with the superconscious trans-personal state (ie.enlightenment), a fallacy he attributes to what he calls 'Romanticism' (in  other words, romanticizing some distant time when humans existed in complete harmony with Nature, God, et al. - a time which he thinks didn't exist in our  past, but could exist in the future of our species when the consciousness of our species as a whole evolves further.) He describes it much better than I could. It's a pretty interesting book and one worth checking out if any of this makes sense to you.

This seems to resonant. The idea is not to remove the ego, reduce it or kill it, the idea is to refine it, improve it, build it. As we look into our past, we see a refinement of EGO to the state we currently perceive. All experiences of advanced entity contact in the astral show such beings displaying EGO (sense of identity, self, personality), some to the extent that people feel over powered by it.

The reason I quoted you is not that I disagree with you, just the thought behind the idea. Many spiritual paths see the reduction of EGO as a goal, as above, I think possibly the opposite should be the goal.

EGO does not have to mean selfishness, infact, sharing is an EGO action born out of Love. All the good and altruistic actions must have awareness and intention behind them (EGO). This to me is a refinement and a beneficial thing.
Meditation does not reduce the EGO, it simply reduces the monkey chatter and constant conceptualisation of past, present and future, it lets one be.


* The reason I say it would be unconscious and unknowing is that EGO is the tool which gives us a sense of individuality, identity, even separation. Without some form of self identity there would be nothing (EGO death).


Interesting link to read:

http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

[MindFreak]

We can speak of an I or ego in conventional terms because we are limited by language. It is not the words themselves that are important just the meaning. You could call the true self, the universal mind I, or ego if you want, you could also call the personality I or ego if you want, but you wouldn't be refering to the same thing. It all depends on the meaning not the word.

[MisterJingo]

I do agree that it depends on the meaning, and in part that is problematic because such experiences are so personal that one persons meaning is different to another’s. That’s why we need to define these terms in language. We might not capture the depth of experience in words, but we can at least identify which experience/meaning we are referring to. Ego is 'I', 'the self',' 'the individual' - if each has a different interpretation of that word, then we talk in circles, and that is the crux of it: the words identify meaning, but if we attach words to different meanings, then we simply confuse ourselves and perhaps assimilate wrong concepts. Earlier in this thread there was talk of ego being negative to spiritual development – or at least the enhancement of it, this is what I believe is misguided.
I used to think words were limiting and experiences themselves could transcend base language. But now I feel one can get too caught up in experiences on a sub-conscious level believing such experiences to be enlightenments, transcendental etc and simply bathe in them rather than learning and growing from them. Sort of like people who meditate but actually just sit and simply day dream rather than maintaining a level of focused awareness. Perhaps the answer is to expand language consciously, perhaps even invent new language or forms of communication to better communicate these things.

[DH]

We can speak of an I or ego in conventional terms because we are limited by language. It is not the words themselves that are important just the meaning. You could call the true self, the universal mind I, or ego if you want, you could also call the personality I or ego if you want, but you wouldn't be refering to the same thing. It all depends on the meaning not the word.

Semantics always seems to get in the way!

Interesting link to read:
http://www.praetrans.com/en/ptf.html

Thanks for the link.  Interesting idea.  It resonates with me, too.  It would seem to make more sense to find fulfillment in the personality evolving into something more positive, like unconditional love, rather than being killed off.

For me, satanism, and other hedonistic philosophies, are a movement in the wrong direction.  They demonstrate attitudes that do need to be killed off (selfishness, narcissism) before there can be any spiritual progress. 

As far as satanism itself goes, I worked with a government agency a few years ago that was looking into some cattle mutilations and links to "satanic" groups in the area.  What we discovered were three kinds of "satanists" in our locale:  Church of Satan types (people connected with LaVey's atheistic mockery of Christianity; no belief in a real devil or god; primarily a plunge into self-indulgence); self-styled satanists (people who made up their own "religion"; some believed in a real devil, others didn't); generational satanists (full-fledged devil worship with human sacrifices; beliefs passed on in the generations of family).  Most "satanists" were the self-styled types. They tended to be in their twenties, low income, involved heavily with drugs, and in and out of county jail or state prison.  The generational types were nearly impossible to find because they had to be secretive to survive; but they seemed to be professional people in the area. 

The people who were investigating these groups didn't take the first two groups seriously as a threat to the community.  LaVey, after all, did parade around in a goofy looking robe like a buffoon.  The self-styled seemed more interested in getting high or trying to conjure up demons (which the authorities wrote off as a part of their drug-crazed hallucinations).  On the other hand, I found them all a little dangerous.  Anyone who basically worships the self and who is always "looking out for number one" will not have your best interest at heart when you get in his way to self-indulgence.

[Stookie]

I understand what you're saying about the removal of the "I" would be unconsciousness, but I see it more as "super-consciousness". Everything is consciousness, and the ego is like an invisible container for a small portion of it. Move awareness outside of this container and you're now aware of the whole, or experience yourself as a part of the whole. This wouldn't "kill" the ego (it is experienced as a death though), but widen the view of reality experienced through ego, thereby enhancing/evolving the ego. The more a person experiences this, the wider the scope of reality becomes for the ego.

Of course in the process of spiritual development the ego is going to evolve and change it's desires towards higher ones of the spirit and away from the lower, animalistic drives of the astral body. We still desire through our ego, but the source of that desire is from awareness beyond the ego. That's a whole 'nother debatable topic.

This to me seems what satanism is about - the gratification of base & materialistic egotistcal desires, while remaining ignorant of a higher part of our awareness that has true evolutionary/spiritual desires.

I don't know, maybe I'm talking out my rear. or my ego's rear.

[natas666]

i would be considered self styled though i dont do drugs but can truly have contact with demons and more...

[ubiquitous]

"Our true self is the pure universal mind, not our everyday mind which is rambling and moving here and there, which we listen to and follow endlessly. The Universal mind is that part of your mind that is not tainted by delusion.
Takes a while of watching the mind and you will notice that part of it that has always been there, watching, not the restless part that is always moving."

I find this quote soothing but mister jingo seems restless upon, it does not however spread light on satinism.

And for other's to say it's self indulgence then people who are more greedy than others are satinists, i don't think so.

To label emotion's and actions with word's is our mainstay of communication, when one apply's this to entity's in our imagination it's no wonder we breakdown on explanation.

[DH]

And for other's to say it's self indulgence then people who are more greedy than others are satinists, i don't think so.
To label emotion's and actions with word's is our mainstay of communication, when one apply's this to entity's in our imagination it's no wonder we breakdown on explanation.

Self-indulgence does not make one a satanist.  Self-indulgence is merely one of the main ingredients in the make up of many I have known, or have been aware of, who have called themselves "satanists" (and have, by the way, all admitted that they were sold out on "looking out for number one").