[LHP] Eastern LHP view and method of the ego

[Kemble]

So basically you're more interested in defining your own little world and then imposing this as consensus reality? Naturally, such is to be rejected.

Your views are valid in their own context so they aren't a proper fit for the LHP DIR IMHO. Actually, just curious, how is your Buddhism left-handed?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Your views are valid in their own context so they aren't a proper fit for the LHP DIR IMHO. Actually, just curious, how is your Buddhism left-handed?

Because I've renounced the right-handed vinaya and taken the left handed samaya.

As these traditions professed the LHP before ever articulated in the West, and we're still contemporary, I'd say we have valid contributions to make in any serious LHP discourse.

 

[Kemble]

Essentially I think the vama marga or Eastern left handed approach is a subset of Buddhism/Hinduism. It is entirely still within those contexts. Left Hand Path proper (with capitals) is a separate approach or religious tradition altogether. The only really tenous connection the two have is antinomianism.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I was told sometime back that as a lefthanded dharmic practitioner I was not allowed to post in the Vedanta section. Go figure.


As far as sharing only antinomianism (to the extent this is even a valid word..., to say nothing of a word that includes a vast swath of common practices), they share far more than taboo-breaking made life art whether for "antinomian" reasons or otherwise - trending towards the otherwise.

 

[crossfire]

If you know of an Eastern path that places the survival and development of the ego as the ultimate goal I'd like to know about it.

The ending of suffering and the development of mind is the ultimate goal in Buddhism. Ego is only a part of the mind, and it's development, purification, and transformation into the Wisdom of Equality (as Doors of Perception put it: realizing we are all in the same boat,) is only part of the ultimate goal. To focus solely on the ego as the ultimate goal would lead to an overall unbalanced mind, prone to madness, vexation, and suffering. The ending of this dukkha is the goal.

As for your earlier statement about LHP being about ego indulgence, it is true it differs from Buddhism in that regard. The first words if his first discourse after Buddhas awakening were this:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.​

Notice the emphasis on devoted in regards to both extremes.

Spoiler: dictionary.com definition of devote

de·vote

[dih-voht] Show IPA
verb (used with object), de·vot·ed, de·vot·ing. 1. to give up or appropriate to or concentrate on a particular pursuit, occupation, purpose, cause, etc.: to devote one's time to reading.

2. to appropriate by or as if by a vow; set apart or dedicate by a solemn or formal act; consecrate: She devoted her life to God.

3. to commit to evil or destruction; doom.

Good call again by Doors of Perception regarding being devoted to ego leading to doom, as per definition 3.

 

[Kemble]

I was told sometime back that as a lefthanded dharmic practitioner I was not allowed to post in the Vedanta section. Go figure.


As far as sharing only antinomianism (to the extent this is even a valid word..., to say nothing of a word that includes a vast swath of common practices), they share far more than taboo-breaking made life art whether for "antinomian" reasons or otherwise - trending towards the otherwise.

Honestly my comments were coming from a technical perspective. There really isn't much of an LHP "community" in the DIR anyway so feel free to contribute.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Essentially I think the vama marga or Eastern left handed approach is a subset of Buddhism/Hinduism. It is entirely still within those contexts. Left Hand Path proper (with capitals) is a separate approach or religious tradition altogether. The only really tenous connection the two have is antinomianism.

Vamachara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vāmācāra[pronunciation?] is a Sanskrit term meaning "left-handed attainment" and is synonymous with "Left-Hand Path" or "Left-path" (Sanskrit: Vāmamārga).[1][2][3] It is used to describe a particular mode of worship or sadhana (spiritual practice) that is not only "heterodox" (Sanskrit: nāstika) to standard Vedic injunction, but extreme in comparison to the status quo.
These practices are often generally considered to be Tantric in orientation. The converse term is dakṣiṇācāra "Right-Hand Path", which is used to refer not only to "orthodox" (Āstika) sects but to modes of spirituality that engage in spiritual practices that not only accord with Vedic injunction but are generally agreeable to the status quo.
Left-handed and right-handed modes of practice may be evident in both orthodox and heterodox schools of Indian religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism and is a matter of taste, culture, proclivity, initiation, sadhana and dharmic "lineage" (parampara).

And although the phrases "Left/Right Handed Path" would not be used until the 1800's, the roots of the practice itself is indeed ancient and started with Indian religions; the phrase left-handed is actually very culturally significant in it's Indian origins.

 

[Kemble]

Hey crossfire,

Great quotes. It is important to remember that the historical context of the Buddha's message was before legitimate scientific understanding of the mind and brain were developed. He was definitely off in his claim that all life is suffering. Actually, the best explanation I've seen for the cause of suffering isn't the ego, but what psychologist Albert Ellis called "musterbation." If you've got 10 minutes on your hands here is what that odd term means:

[youtube]GyRE-78g_z0[/youtube]

 

[crossfire]

Hey crossfire,

Great quotes. It is important to remember that the historical context of the Buddha's message was before legitimate scientific understanding of the mind and brain were developed. He was definitely off in his claim that all life is suffering.

Huh?
(From sutta linked to in my previous post)

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."​

Actually, the best explanation I've seen for the cause of suffering isn't the ego,

Who said the ego was the cause of suffering?

...but what psychologist Albert Ellis called "musterbation." If you've got 10 minutes on your hands here is what that odd term means:

[youtube]GyRE-78g_z0[/youtube]

Yes, that is similar to what Buddha described as "clinging or attachment."

 

[Adramelek]

How does Thelema, a Greek word meaning "True Will", as a Western LHP magical philosophy apply to the Setian Xeper = Self-directed Self-Evolution?

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
IAO SET!

 

[Kemble]

Huh?
(From sutta linked to in my previous post)

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."​

Buddha taught to extinguish (nirvana) desire because some things are dukkha. Fitting enough analogy is a child that gets a tooth ache and decides life isn't worth living. I think if we change our beliefs about events they no longer become dukkha; that it is a linguistic error in how we interpret the experience, and not the desire itself causing the suffering. We can therefore regain optimism and appreciate adversity (suffering can be good; see "eustress").

Who said the ego was the cause of suffering?

It looks like you went back on your last statement: "Good call again by Doors of Perception regarding being devoted to ego leading to doom, as per definition 3."

The ending of suffering and the development of mind is the ultimate goal in Buddhism.

And I am telling you the Buddhist solution, although still containing a few relevant aspects for today, is long behind the times. We know not all suffering is bad. We know desire isn't the cause of suffering. In light of modern positive psychology, Buddhism is extreme and childish in its outlook.

 

[1137]

How does Thelema, a Greek word meaning "True Will", as a Western LHP magical philosophy apply to the Setian Xeper = Self-directed Self-Evolution?

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
IAO SET!

I don't know nor care to be honest. I'm not a Setian.

 

[crossfire]

Buddha taught to extinguish (nirvana) desire because some things are dukkha. Fitting enough analogy is a child that gets a tooth ache and decides life isn't worth living. I think if we change our beliefs about events they no longer become dukkha; that it is a linguistic error in how we interpret the experience, and not the desire itself causing the suffering. We can therefore regain optimism and appreciate adversity (suffering can be good; see "eustress").

Actually, it is extinguishing unskillful desire, or desire towards what is unskillful. Generating desire to develop what is skillful is quite helpful in generating success in your practice.

It looks like you went back on your last statement: "Good call again by Doors of Perception regarding being devoted to ego leading to doom, as per definition 3."

How so? It's a basic Taoist principle. (See Tao Te Ching 36)

And I am telling you the Buddhist solution, although still containing a few relevant aspects for today, is long behind the times. We know not all suffering is bad. We know desire isn't the cause of suffering. In light of modern positive psychology, Buddhism is extreme and childish in its outlook.

I just cited in my last post what Buddha said about dukkha, and yet you still insist on misrepresenting it?

 

[Kemble]

Actually, it is extinguishing unskillful desire, or desire towards what is unskillful. Generating desire to develop what is skillful is quite helpful in generating success in your practice.

The ultimate desire in the Buddhist sense is the desire to escape from the life cycle. To quote from here:

What made the Buddha special was that he never lowered his expectations. He imagined the ultimate happiness — one so free from limit and lack that it would leave no need for further desire — and then treasured his desire for that happiness as his highest priority. Bringing all his other desires into dialogue with it, he explored various strategies until finding one that actually attained that unlimited goal. This strategy became his most basic teaching: the four noble truths.

I feel the author is being too optimistic about that "ultimate happiness." My analogy of the child with a toothache still stands.

I just cited in my last post what Buddha said about dukkha, and yet you still insist on misrepresenting it?

I'd urge a review of the concept of nirvana.

 

[Adramelek]

I don't know nor care to be honest. I'm not a Setian.

Well gee thanks. It is not just a Setian question?

 

[crossfire]

The ultimate desire in the Buddhist sense is the desire to escape from the life cycle. To quote from here:

Originally Posted by Desire & Imagination in the Buddhist Path
What made the Buddha special was that he never lowered his expectations. He imagined the ultimate happiness — one so free from limit and lack that it would leave no need for further desire — and then treasured his desire for that happiness as his highest priority. Bringing all his other desires into dialogue with it, he explored various strategies until finding one that actually attained that unlimited goal. This strategy became his most basic teaching: the four noble truths.

I feel the author is being too optimistic about that "ultimate happiness." My analogy of the child with a toothache still stands.

So you are calling it an "unskillful desire?"

I'd urge a review of the concept of nirvana.

Nibbana can be experienced in the here and now.

 

[Kemble]

Nibbana can be experienced in the here and now.

No thanks.

 

[Kemble]

So you are calling it an "unskillful desire?"

Well here's the rub: it depends on your value system. If extinguishing desire and escaping life is your final destination then it isn't "bad" per se. I just don't think nirvana is necessary or desirable in my value system. It's a bit like trying to convince a suicidal to live: ultimately you may find life worth living, but the suicidal may not see value in life. How do you resolve it? You can try to show them your value system by comparing it to theirs, but you can never force them to accept yours. It is two different value systems. To tie this back to the thread: the RHP isn't wrong. In the context of the LHP, it is. Although, they are as distinct as apples and oranges. In their own contexts, they are valid. Across contexts, they aren't.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Too many false dichotomies here due to misunderstandings of nirvana as it's understood by many different Buddhist sects.

Nirvana to the tantric Buddhist is a different animal; the conventional nirvana of sravakas and pratyekabuddhas is held up to scrutiny as is the general escapism.

 

[crossfire]

Well here's the rub: it depends on your value system. If extinguishing desire and escaping life is your final destination then it isn't "bad" per se.

It's extinguishing unskillful desires (bad habits.) Nibbana is not about escaping life, as it can be experienced in the here and now.

I just don't think nirvana is necessary or desirable in my value system. It's a bit like trying to convince a suicidal to live: ultimately you may find life worth living, but the suicidal may not see value in life. How do you resolve it? You can try to show them your value system by comparing it to theirs, but you can never force them to accept yours. It is two different value systems. To tie this back to the thread: the RHP isn't wrong. In the context of the LHP, it is. Although, they are as distinct as apples and oranges. In their own contexts, they are valid. Across contexts, they aren't.

The above argument is based upon misrepresentation, which you seem to have made a bad habit of.