• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Higher self, self-deification and buddha nature

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
I've noticed you guys in the Left Hand Path have the goal of self-deification. Isn't that the same as enlightenment as is considered by some Buddhist schools? Could the LHP's Higher Self be compared to an individual's buddha nature?

My way of thinking is LHP, but I feel better with the buddhas. Satan has been so "yin" for me the last time I've put him on my altar, I thought he was literally killing me. Maybe I used an image that was too Christian? Maybe he prefers me to put him as the dark goat god? I thought he wanted an image of a rebel angel:

Lucifer-fallen-angel.jpg


Curiously I also had the same bad feeling when I put a black buddha.

I don't like the Buddhist rules and goals of detaching from everything, annihilation, asceticism, etc. But some Buddhist schools seem to believe in a higher self of sorts. So enlightenment would be to become some sort of deity; a buddha or a bodhisattva.

In fact I have a friend who believes Buddhism's goal is just to annihilate our human part; not really the whole ego.
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
Seems some demostration of loyalty to Satan was needed to end up the discomfort. Putting a small sign on my altar that says "I renounce the Demiurge" seems to have solved the problem. Time will tell if Gnostic Satanism is my path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Liu

Liu

Well-Known Member
We'd probably need to ask some Buddhists whether they consider this characterization of their religion accurate, and we'd likely get different answers depending which one we ask.

Detachment from desires can also be compatible with the LHP in my opinion. Typically, the LHP is the path of balance between extremes, but as I recently mentioned in some other thread here, overcoming a desire (or specific problematic aspects thereof) completely can be a good solution if one is fighting with an addiction to it. Still I doubt my approaches to asceticism would find the agreement of many traditional schools of Buddhism ;)
 

FooYang

Active Member
Could the LHP's Higher Self be compared to an individual's buddha nature?

Lol, definitely not. Higher Self is a Self, it is a metaphysical form. Buddhanature (Tathagatagarbha et al) is above existence and nonexistence. The Higher Self is more like an intermediary deity, in comparison. The Self itself in Buddhism at least, is not eternal in the same sense, because everything dissolves into the clear light of Emptiness. Really when you look at it, Buddhism is like an extreme form of RHP because it is the release of everything, not that attainment of something vertically.
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
Lol, definitely not. Higher Self is a Self, it is a metaphysical form. Buddhanature (Tathagatagarbha et al) is above existence and nonexistence. The Higher Self is more like an intermediary deity, in comparison. The Self itself in Buddhism at least, is not eternal in the same sense, because everything dissolves into the clear light of Emptiness. Really when you look at it, Buddhism is like an extreme form of RHP because it is the release of everything, not that attainment of something vertically.

Hmmm, let's see how I manage to put that in agree with my UPG; in which Satan (I think he prefers to be called Samael) recommended me to put a golden Buddha on my altar. He said to me (by inspiration/thoughts/voice of consciousness) that the meaning of the Buddha in the Left Hand Path is different; it symbolizes the man who "made it"; who discovered the god he really is. Thus it's a symbol of self-deification. But only within the LHP context; in which it stays as just one more symbol or magical tool. I don't know what you guys think about this idea.

BTW, another thing that ended my discomfort with Satan/Samael is to put an image of the white serpent, Lilith, next to his picture. Seems she bestows balance by giving light (!). But it's not the same light from the Demiurge; it's another frequency.
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, let's see how I manage to put that in agree with my UPG; in which Satan (I think he prefers to be called Samael) recommended me to put a golden Buddha on my altar. He said to me (by inspiration/thoughts/voice of consciousness) that the meaning of the Buddha in the Left Hand Path is different; it symbolizes the man who "made it"; who discovered the god he really is. Thus it's a symbol of self-deification. But only within the LHP context; in which it stays as just one more symbol or magical tool. I don't know what you guys think about this idea.
Most LHPers' opinion on Buddhism, from what I encountered, seemed quite a bit more negative, i.e. considering his goal to be harmful and not in line with LHP-goals.
As I wrote above, likely depends on the kind of Buddhism whether valid or not.

BTW, another thing that ended my discomfort with Satan/Samael is to put an image of the white serpent, Lilith, next to his picture. Seems she bestows balance by giving light (!). But it's not the same light from the Demiurge; it's another frequency.
Haven't ever heard of Lilith being a white serpent.
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
Haven't ever heard of Lilith being a white serpent.

Never read about her color, but that's how I've seen her in trance so far, twice. Weird; I thought someone else had a vision or read something about her being white. Never seen her in her human aspect so far.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Hmmm, let's see how I manage to put that in agree with my UPG; in which Satan (I think he prefers to be called Samael) recommended me to put a golden Buddha on my altar. He said to me (by inspiration/thoughts/voice of consciousness) that the meaning of the Buddha in the Left Hand Path is different; it symbolizes the man who "made it"; who discovered the god he really is. Thus it's a symbol of self-deification. But only within the LHP context; in which it stays as just one more symbol or magical tool. I don't know what you guys think about this idea.

BTW, another thing that ended my discomfort with Satan/Samael is to put an image of the white serpent, Lilith, next to his picture. Seems she bestows balance by giving light (!). But it's not the same light from the Demiurge; it's another frequency.
Golden Buddha would be Ratnasambhava.
Ratnasambhava - Wikipedia

The serpent would be the naga Mucalinda.

BouddhaSimuong.jpg
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
But wasn't Mucalinda the one who protected Siddharta from a rain before he achieved enlightenment?
Well, yeah, before and after enlightenment. Mucalinda was with Buddha under the Bodhi tree. There is an interesting story about Mucalinda regarding the higher self--Buddha called it a conceit, which is an interesting tie back/synchronicity to this thread topic. It also ties in to the symbolism of Ratnasambhava

Muccalinda Sutta: About Muccalinda
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
There is an interesting story about Mucalinda regarding the higher self

Well that story is interesting because it basically mentions a good shapeshifting reptilian. But it doesn't really clarify if the "I am" refers to the lower or the higher self.
 
I've noticed you guys in the Left Hand Path have the goal of self-deification. Isn't that the same as enlightenment as is considered by some Buddhist schools? Could the LHP's Higher Self be compared to an individual's buddha nature?

The Buddhists I know wouldn't speak about "individual's buddha nature", because Buddhism don't believe in an existing "individual".
As far I know, Buddha never talked about a Self. But that doesn't mean that he has teached that there is "no Self". Buddhists often goes to the reality before the words, before the postulate.
But unlike Buddhism, which considers the question of the self to be unanswerable, the left-hand path assumes that there is a self and that it is adorable. Because the self has own identity, based on the idea that consciousness has self-isolated existence, I would not say it is nirvana/empty. The idea, that the own existence doesn't really exist, is a faulty assumption from the point of view of the left-hand path.
In Hinduism you have similar problems. For example, in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the idea of relationship with God based of the knowledge, that the self must be separated from God to be able to have a relationship. But the nature of Self is identical with Brahman. However, Brahman is the impersonal truth and if the Self will be identical with an impersonal truth, then the Self has no own, separated nature. In this sense, the left-hand path stands also against the ideas of Hinduism, that the self is identical with an impersonal truth. The self has an independent, isolated existence and therefore it is not identical to an impersonal truth Brahman or Nirvana, which is equally impersonal truth.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
The Buddhists I know wouldn't speak about "individual's buddha nature", because Buddhism don't believe in an existing "individual".
As far I know, Buddha never talked about a Self. But that doesn't mean that he has teached that there is "no Self". Buddhists often goes to the reality before the words, before the postulate.
But unlike Buddhism, which considers the question of the self to be unanswerable, the left-hand path assumes that there is a self and that it is adorable. Because the self has own identity, based on the idea that consciousness has self-isolated existence, I would not say it is nirvana/empty. The idea, that the own existence doesn't really exist, is a faulty assumption from the point of view of the left-hand path.
In Hinduism you have similar problems. For example, in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the idea of relationship with God based of the knowledge, that the self must be separated from God to be able to have a relationship. But the nature of Self is identical with Brahman. However, Brahman is the impersonal truth and if the Self will be identical with an impersonal truth, then the Self has no own, separated nature. In this sense, the left-hand path stands also against the ideas of Hinduism, that the self is identical with an impersonal truth. The self has an independent, isolated existence and therefore it is not identical to an impersonal truth Brahman or Nirvana, which is equally impersonal truth.
Here is the dhammapada chapter on the Self:
Attavagga: The Self
An individual's Buddha Nature is sentience (having a subjective mind)--and the capacity to awaken to the fact that with sentience comes the capacity for delusion (delusion being the confusion of the subjective for the objective.)

Anatman/anatta is process-based theory rather than the substance-based brahman theory.
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
The Buddhists I know wouldn't speak about "individual's buddha nature", because Buddhism don't believe in an existing "individual".
As far I know, Buddha never talked about a Self. But that doesn't mean that he has teached that there is "no Self". Buddhists often goes to the reality before the words, before the postulate.
But unlike Buddhism, which considers the question of the self to be unanswerable, the left-hand path assumes that there is a self and that it is adorable. Because the self has own identity, based on the idea that consciousness has self-isolated existence, I would not say it is nirvana/empty. The idea, that the own existence doesn't really exist, is a faulty assumption from the point of view of the left-hand path.
In Hinduism you have similar problems. For example, in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the idea of relationship with God based of the knowledge, that the self must be separated from God to be able to have a relationship. But the nature of Self is identical with Brahman. However, Brahman is the impersonal truth and if the Self will be identical with an impersonal truth, then the Self has no own, separated nature. In this sense, the left-hand path stands also against the ideas of Hinduism, that the self is identical with an impersonal truth. The self has an independent, isolated existence and therefore it is not identical to an impersonal truth Brahman or Nirvana, which is equally impersonal truth.

Now that you talk about the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, a few years ago I had a vision in trance with Krishna, twice, in which he showed me the self as an eternal, indivisible personality (I won't tell the whole story here since it'd be long). In fact, in one of the visions he showed me my true self as a golden buddha with my face (!). However years later I also had a vision with Shiva; in which he told me there is a Source where all souls (atmas) come from; as loose pieces from it. So the question remains for me that if Brahman is really an eternal, indivisible, personal self, then how is it possible that he took "pieces" from him to form the souls?

I think "pure personality" is one of its traits. If "personality" divides, it forms other personalities, other individualities, but the idea of a personality itself, is never destroyed.

I've also been told in trance that not everything about the true nature of the self is understandable by humans. We live in a world where everything is perishable and composed of other things. So we have very hard time understanding what is truly eternal and indestructible. We'll have to slowly evolve beyond humanity then.

BTW if "the nature of Self is identical with Brahman", it doesn't mean it's a part of Brahman. A drop is made of water but it's not the ocean. The thing for me hard to understand is how a personality ocean formed little drops, little personalities.
 
Last edited:
Now that you talk about the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, a few years ago I had a vision in trance with Krishna, twice, in which he showed me the self as an eternal, indivisible personality (I won't tell the whole story here since it'd be long). In fact, in one of the visions he showed me my true self as a golden buddha with my face (!). However years later I also had a vision with Shiva; in which he told me there is a Source where all souls (atmas) come from; as loose pieces from it. So the question remains for me that if Brahman is really an eternal, indivisible, personal self, then how is it possible that he took "pieces" from him to form the souls?

I think, to think that a transcendental entity, or this entity that humans perceive under different names, cut itself in pieces, is a very materialistic kind of understanding. If you look at the ocean and at a glass water, both is water, isn't ? Or you look at the fire and the sparks, are they one or something that is cutten?

Gaudiya Vaishnava, for example, believes, that God is personal and impersonal. He is Brahman and he is Bhagavan. It's question of perception and spiritual life if the follower will going to the impersonal Brahmayoti or to the Godhead itself. Concerning the metaphysical conception, I consider the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition as kind of left-hand path, because they they try to free themselves from the cycle of rebirths and to be a separate existence from God. From the standpoint of personal objectives, they are more right-hand path, because they want to reach a state of selflessness where they don't care whether they go to heaven or hell as long as they can serve God. From the standpoint of norms they try to make external regulations (regulating principles) their own and to subordinate their personal interests to them.

A big difference is from my point of view the following: While the right-hand path believes, not to see the differences and to see everything as one, is a kind of spiritual advancement, the left-hand path realizes that to understand the difference of own isolate intelligence in intelligent personal life is spiritual advanced. It is not a "belief", it like the progression of the child in the human body. The process of self-realization. So if we talk about a higher-self, then we accept the existence of a Self. If there will be no self, then we couldn't realize that there will be a higher self.

We can talk about different understandings of the Self, but our common ground is that there is a Self. Our everyday self and our higher self are both expression of our isolated psychecentered existence. Neither our normal Self, nor our higher Self should be considered less important than external rules. Yes, we can define rules for ourselfes to educate and develop our own personality towards the higher self, but these rules are internal and rooted in our isolated existence. The higher Self is part of our isolated existence and not appendage of God. I believe that followers of the left-hand path don't want to replace their normal Self with the conception of a higher Self, but more enhance their Self toward the Higher Self. It's a positive acceptance of the Self we have.

I've also been told in trance that not everything about the true nature of the self is understandable by humans. Wa Vae live in a world where everything is perishable and composed of other things. So we have very hard time understanding what is truly eternal and indestructible. We'll have to slowly evolve beyond humanity then.

The true nature of the Self is to be separated. Maybe there are other features, but the essence of the Self is to be separated.
 

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
they don't care whether they go to heaven or hell as long as they can serve God.

AFAIK Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees want to go to Krishna's heavenly planet (Goloka Vrindavan) as a final goal.

the right-hand path believes, not to see the differences and to see everything as one

I think that "We are all one!" concept is a trick to force common people without any spiritual background to have empathy towards their neighbors. Besides it's nice for someone who feels insignificant to hear that he or she is "God". Unfortunately most people seem to miss the "Borg" angle of that concept.

But once you realize every self is important and unique, you don't need to believe your neighbor is God to have empathy for most people. You realize that even in the worse person there's a hidden gem (too bad that gem doesn't always manifest!).

we can define rules for ourselfes to educate and develop our own personality towards the higher self, but these rules are internal and rooted in our isolated existence.

Yeah but sometimes no rule is enough. I don't remember whom (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think it was maybe Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde that said: "Rules are for people who don't think".
 
AFAIK Gaudiya Vaishnava devotees want to go to Krishna's heavenly planet (Goloka Vrindavan) as a final goal.

Yes, both, but on the question of their own will, many devotees realize that to want to go to Goloka Vrndavan is also a direction of the Ego/own Will and thus they say "As long I can serve Krishna, it is not important to which direction I go". It's a little bit curious, because at this point of their spiritual path they realize that they acting according to their own will.

Yeah but sometimes no rule is enough. I don't remember whom (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think it was maybe Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde that said: "Rules are for people who don't think".

If you don't have rules or principles (to fulfill your intelligent goals), then you will follow the genetical programs of your own body. It will be O.k. to fulfill your body needs if it doesn't cross your intelligent needs. A person have to create principles and rules to fulfill personal goals. To create intelligent goals in your life, to create principles and rules, you have to think. I would say that a person who couldn't create their own rules is less intelligent than a person who strives for a goal. Important is, that these rules are created by your own.
 
Last edited:

agorman

Active Member
Premium Member
If you don't have rules or principles (to fulfill your intelligent goals), then you will follow the genetical programs of your own body. It will be O.k. to fulfill your body needs if it doesn't cross your intelligent needs. A person have to create principles and rules to fulfill personal goals. To create intelligent goals in your life, to create principles and rules, you have to think. I would say that a person who couldn't create their own rules is less intelligent than a person who strives for a goal. Important is, that these rules are created by your own.

Well no, what I meant is that in certain situations rules won't be enough to get away with it. e.g. I have two rules I believe I don't have to break, so I keep close to the "Great Spirit" (Source or however you want to call him/her); don't harm innocents and don't be sadistic with the guilty ones. But I hope I'll never be in a situation where I'll have to hurt an innocent to avoid a criminal from harming other innocents! So we always have to think to decide which is the most convenient way of acting in every situation. Rules are comfortable, but they're not always adequate for all situations; life is complex.
 
I agree with you. But with a little tendency to disagree: Because if the daily life is too complex to fulfill your personal goals, too chaotic to use your principles as tool and too full of fortuities, then first you have to bring some order and structure in the daily life.
We don't speak about some extreme situation. These are the test how strong to own existence really is. But for our daily life it is not useful to say "Oh, sometimes there will come the chaotic influences and because of this it makes ne sense to give our life structure".
 
Top