LHP: Is a community needed??

[LuisDantas]

Spiritual but not religious?
Religion is defined as organized faith. In that sense, most neo-pagan cults are not religions. The same goes for primitive animism. Religion only started with the advent of agriculture and the first big cities. Organize the faith, organize the community.

Those are a popular definition and matching perspective, but they do not make a whole lot of sense outside of specific communities (far as I know, only those shaped by Abrahamic expectations).

Religiosity can and often does benefit from connection to groups, organized or otherwise. But that is not a requirement.

So why do I attribute those expectations to Abrahamic culture? Because they are big on telling adherents what they should believe in and how they should behave, while others favor learning and expressing certain traditions in a more personalized manner.

Being religious is not and can never be a binary; dividing people between "religious" and "non-religious" will always be an arbitrary call. But it is not always a very meaningful call to make.

A main exception are the Abrahamics, which tend to expect a lot of demonstrable, very visible display of commitment and respect towards the specific organizations and creeds regardless of actual personal vocations.

That may well be a main reason why SBNR is a thing in the first place. Those environments create a sometimes very sharp contrast between religiosity proper and adherence to the expectations of the institution or community.

 

[CharmingOwl]

I think the person saying community is required is just projecting their own faith onto others. Left Hand Path is not a religion that requires you to go to a building every sunday. You can be the last person alive worshipping some obscure gods, but as long as you practice it it's a religion regardless of any community or other people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is a 'path' in search of 'truth'. Can belong to any religion. Religions other than Hinduism also have it.

 

[Audie]

In another thread I'm being told that LHP practitioners require some connection to a community or else it's not considered a religion.

I completely disagree.

What say you? Is there such thing as a solo practitoner? Maybe a syncretist who makes their own path? Would this person be accepted by LHP'ers as an LHP'er? Do you think this person can be accurately described as religious if they practice regularly?

Thank you,

I'm a left handed person

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the person saying community is required is just projecting their own faith onto others.

Nope. I'm non-religious and don't have a faith.

Left Hand Path is not a religion that requires you to go to a building every sunday.

As I already said in this thread and the last one:

"Community" doesn't have to mean "the group of people who I meet with weekly in the same physical space."

You can be the last person alive worshipping some obscure gods, but as long as you practice it it's a religion regardless of any community or other people.

In that case, you would be the last remnant of a community.

There's a bit of weird semantic nuance in the question of how small a religious - or geographic - community has to be before it no longer counts as a "community," kind of like how there's nuance in how many raindrops have to hit you before you qualify as "wet", but this doesn't invalidate the concepts of "wet" or "community."

 

[Heyo]

Those are a popular definition and matching perspective, but they do not make a whole lot of sense outside of specific communities (far as I know, only those shaped by Abrahamic expectations).

Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism are big on organization, the Pagan religions of Mesopotamia, Egypt and South and Meso America were also. Everywhere we find ancient high cultures we also find highly organized and ritualized cults, that's what I call religion.
We don't see it in the same way in nomadic or small community tribes.
Even when we look at the reality of the Abrahamic tradition, we see unorganized polytheism that only had been ret-conned after prolonged contact with a high civilization.

 

[dybmh]

I agree with @Aštra’el

It is sometimes encouraged but never required. This is often an individual(-istic) path. I also fail to see how a structured system of beliefs with ritualistic practices and codification can not be considered a religion, in this regard. Even if there only be one practitioner.

Putting myself in the shoes of the opposition, the claim they are making is "Where did the rituals, structure, and codification come from? It must be from a community past or present."

My response is teacher to student lineage is not a community. Syncretic practice collected from many sources is not a community.

 

[dybmh]

For everyone's benefit here: @dybmh has either misrepresented or misunderstood my posts in the other thread.

I explained there that I consider a connection to a larger tradition as an aspect of community. I explained this to him in the other thread, but it seems like he didn't get my point. As I said in the other thread:



While I hate resorting to the dictionary in a debate, I'll do it here because it may help to explain where I'm coming from. IMO, the definition of "community" includes:

• a unified body of individuals: such as
  • a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society
  • a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests
  • a group linked by a common policy
• a social state or condition
• common character

Definition of COMMUNITY

I would say that likely all solitary Pagans still fit into my (admittedly broad) understanding of "community." Edit: I would say that practicing in a larger tradition is still an expression of community, even if done in solitude.

... so as I said in the other thread, @dybmh seems to have created a whole thread about how he missed the point.

Havent you been saying a community connection is *required* for someone to be practicing a religion?

The only thing required in LHP is personal freedom. The idea that anything else is required is simply wrong. That's the point of this thread.

 

[dybmh]

Left hand path according to Joseph Campbell:
Joseph Campbell — Jung and the Right and Left-hand Paths - YouTube

Yes, you've posted this video in the past, thank you.

If I understand, the underlying principle Mr. Cambell is presenting is LHP is non-conformist? Therefore a community is not required to practice?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Havent you been saying a community connection is *required* for someone to be practicing a religion?

No.

For someone who's putting as much effort as you are into replying to my posts and spinning them off into new threads, it might help for you to take enough time to read and actually understand what you're replying to.

The only thing required in LHP is personal freedom. The idea that anything else is required is simply wrong. That's the point of this thread.

No, you're thinking of libertarianism.

 

[dybmh]

thinking "I am a solitary Pagan practicing in (insert tradition), just like many other people" is enough for them to constitute a religion (and a community).

A solitary pagan practicing syncretism is not reliant on a community.

 

[dybmh]

Mental health is required. A religion can be individual, however individuals need society. If religion is to disregard other people and to act like they don't exist, then I think that is more of a mental disorder than a religion. If you can interact with other people then practicing alone can be called religion. If you simply cannot deal with other people, then it is questionable for you to call it religion.

It is not a double standard. A religion of groups can also depart from mental health, and then they, too, are becoming a mental disorder rather than a religion. When they start poisoning each other and committing mass suicide they aren't a religion. Maybe we cannot objectively determine where religion ends and madness begins, but I think religion is not madness and madness is not religion.

A religious hermit does not require others and is also not mentally ill.

 

[dybmh]

the definition of "community" includes:

• a unified body of individuals: such as
  • a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society
  • a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests
  • a group linked by a common policy

how small a religious - or geographic - community has to be before it no longer counts as a "community," kind of like how there's nuance in how many raindrops have to hit you before you qualify as "wet", but this doesn't invalidate the concepts of "wet" or "community."

A religion passed on teacher-to-student, a lineage, is not a community. Too small. It's not a "body of persons" per your definition of community provided. It's a "pair".

 

[dybmh]

Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism are big on organization, the Pagan religions of Mesopotamia, Egypt and South and Meso America were also. Everywhere we find ancient high cultures we also find highly organized and ritualized cults, that's what I call religion.
We don't see it in the same way in nomadic or small community tribes.
Even when we look at the reality of the Abrahamic tradition, we see unorganized polytheism that only had been ret-conned after prolonged contact with a high civilization.

Here's a pretty good article describing the historic and current state of Daoist Hermit cultivation in isolation. In one of the stories, a master developed their own healing techniques using mediation and cultivation, no community required. In another story, the hermit was taught by a teacher ( no community ) and practiced in solitude with major reported health benefits. Even if the story is not true, the point is that a religion was practiced solo without connection to a community.

Modern Chinese Hermits

 

[dybmh]

No, you're thinking of libertarianism.

Simply not true. LHP is commited to personal freedom. Listen to the LHP folks who are replying.

 

[dybmh]

Havent you been saying a community connection is *required* for someone to be practicing a religion?

No.

For someone who's putting as much effort as you are into replying to my posts and spinning them off into new threads, it might help for you to take enough time to read and actually understand what you're replying to.

Sounds like a 180 degree flip-flop. But OK.

a religion is defined in terms of community: an individual self-identifies as a member of the community and the community in turn recognizes the individual as a member.

Here's what you said ^^. If a religion does not require a community ( which is what you said ) - then religion cannot be defined in terms of community ( which is also what you said ).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A solitary pagan practicing syncretism is not reliant on a community.

If they're following in some established tradition, then they are.

If they aren't following in an established tradition - i.e. they authored their belief system from whole cloth - why call them "Pagan"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds like a 180 degree flip-flop. But OK.

If you think it does, it's because you haven't understood what I've been saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply not true. LHP is commited to personal freedom. Listen to the LHP folks who are replying.

That's an aspect of the left-hand path, sure.

...but ask yourself what differentiates LHP religions from other belief systems and ideologies that advocate "freedom". That difference is where you'll find community.

... if you bother to reflect a bit before you respond this time, that is.

 

[dybmh]

@9-10ths_Penguin , The point of this thread is to collect the point of view from other LHP practioners regarding whether or not a community is required. It seems as if you do not value these points of view deeming yours to be superior. It's simply ignorance combined with arrogance.