From: katminnaar	Date: March 21st, 2003 10:29 am (UTC)		(Link)

I have that book (The Jesus Mysteries)! I will get around to reading your essay more carefully. For now:

None work when separate from the others... i.e., pursuing a purely spiritual self or renouncing the world and materialism is damaging to the self as a whole.

This seems to be what some pagans are actually striving toward, and yet in talking with some of them, I get the feeling the Eastern view of wanting to escape the life cycle takes predominance when talking of the *spiritual* self. It seems there's a real difficulty in reconciling an earthly existence with this need for spiritual perfection. I think a lot of paganism (Wicca in particular) has gravitated more toward a "gift shop spirituality" mentality, or has been largely appropriated by the feminist and environmental movements--which all in all in not necessarily a bad thing IMO--but ends up getting watered down and muddled with Christianity to the point that it's really no longer the same religion, or even its OWN religion. I've even heard a few people call themselves 'Christian Wiccan.' I have no idea how that's supposed to work, but the Gnostic aspects have a lot to do with it. "Christianity the way it was meant to be -- which is actually pretty close to the old pagan religions!" is a common exclamation.

	From: vexen	Date: March 21st, 2003 10:51 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah, the Wiccans discuss this within their own groups, and I've heard the pseudo-Christian and new age patchwork Wiccans described as "fluffkins and wikkins", I have no idea where those terms come from though!

I agree with the Gnostic comments... but, from what I know (and we're definately pushing the limits of my Wicca knowledge here!) Wicca and it's texts aren't really like old Mystery religions... "Pagan Pathways" by Charlotte & Hardman is a really good selection of in depth essays that touch on these historicity issues!

http://www.vexen.co.uk/book_paganpathways.html

The quotes I've taken from it aren't actually from those parts of the book that deal with historicity, but it's the most sensible book I've read on the topic!

From: katminnaar	Date: March 21st, 2003 11:02 am (UTC)		(Link)

Fluffbunnies, I've heard that. It's when they water down the religion and bring in the whole "white light" thing to try to make it more socially acceptable... turn it into some kind of psychotherapy/feel-good spirituality.

Wicca CAN'T be that much like the old Mystery Religions! It's only ~50 years old! I know some people like to try to tie it to the past in some unbroken line dating back to before Christianity, but I think that's incorrect (from all I've read). (And I'll look at that link; sounds interesting!)

How many books have you read on the Wiccan topic? :)

	From: vexen	Date: March 21st, 2003 11:13 am (UTC)		(Link)

A few aside from the academic one I just linked, and OCRT who do excellent pages on Wicca:

http://www.religioustolerance.org

I've also read some Frederick Lamond (a respected Wiccan of 40 years standing, can get book title if you wish, but I'm going to start making fun of it given the first opportunity...), and some Gardner, and at University used to know a trio that I called the 3 witches, who in retrospect I would call fluffbunnies! I once met the son of a high-ranking (I've forgotten the title, it was very pretentious...) Pagan Federation representative, and another person with similar pretentious-sounding claims at Uni too, they knew lots about Wicca (in particular) but at the time I never really had any questions I wanted to ask them!

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 9th, 2003 11:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Attachment...

I don't think the issue is attachment has something to be denied is really part of a deeper gnostic insite...its like the story of the Buddha and the Dancer in the old pali scripts...the Buddha is watching a courtisan with some of his students and after she is done dancing he asks why desire for her is an illusion, one student says that because she is just an agrogation of meat running on interta its pointless to desire her...the Buddha asks "Why is he wrong?" noone answers...the Buddha says "because she was not there in the first place."

The point being is that if u wanted to be able to progam the prima-matera u have to clear your mind of all the sense impression recognisers that support attachment to form as one will blow a fuse if they do not.

The only out is to join OTO or something and get an initiation using sound, this will allow a hard-coded ego to survive the conversion of the brain from a support for the ego into a focus for the "Power."

BlessedBe To All Sentient Beings Reguardless Of Form.

Carbonflux

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 4th, 2008 05:54 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Gnosticism, Satanism, and attachment to this world..

It is true that Christian and Pagan Gnostics saw this world as being less than perfect, and sought union with their Original Source, the likes of which this world (in their opinion) was but a pale reflection. To this end they frequently "demonized" matter, lust, the senses, etc. Some Gnostics however took the opposite route: they believed that union with the Divine or with their Original Source could be obtained through indulgence, or a balance of indulgence and abstinance. Some who identify as Gnostic Satanists believe this as well.

And why, as Satanists, should we believe only in the reality of THIS world, which our senses experience? The brain is a sense organ of sorts as well, and "spiritual" experiences and intimations should no more be negated as "real" than should sight or sound perceived by our eyes and ears. We cannot hear all sounds or see all colors. Does this mean then that what we cannot see and hear isn't there?

Believing in other worlds of existence or an afterlife does not have to mean giving up the pleasures of this life for a "pipedream". As a Theistic Satanist, I regard Satan as an actual deity who embodies and TRANSCENDS matter, being among other things, Lord of it. Why should there not be an afterlife world which is also material, one more sensually pleasant and materially perfect than this one? I do not "give up" attachment to this world to attain another. I believe that matter and spirit intertwine and inform one another, and that to focus on our material world as being "the only one" because it is all we perceive with our physical bodies is to be imbalanced. Again, science proves that our sense are limited inperceiving all that can be perceived. And that which cannot be perceived is as much a part of Satan's realm as anything else.

I rejoice in life and in the carnal, but also believe that something of "me" survives death (call it "spirit") and that this can be incarnated again in this world or another. Why should not Satan reign over this world and many other worlds and lifetimes?

Hans

	From: vexen	Date: February 4th, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Gnosticism, Satanism, and attachment to this world..

Thank you for the lucid and well-articulated commentary, you do theistic Satanists an honour.

But, the reason that Satanism (read: non-theistic Satanism) is atheistic and materialistic is that there is, in reality, no spiritual realm of existence!

Clearly, those who DO believe in spiritual beings are inclined to be theistic Satanists, whilst those who are more skeptical are inclined to be materialistic Satanists, embodied by the Church of Satan.

But it is an unclear area, and if you believe in afterlife stuff, then so be it!