Left Hand with no Dharma?

[Yadon]

I stumbled across this sub-forum, and felt an amount of glee. Then I look and there is only modern Western philosophies among most of the posters. Please do not mistake me for arguing, I am just curious what the definition is as for this sub forum. I have at times walked the Left Hand Path, as I have the Right.

So I guess my intent then is to ask, why call yourself Left Hand Path?

I suppose if enough people think it is something different, it becomes that. That's how language works, right? But why then are only Western religions represented in the sub categories? Otherwise I have seen this site have an extensive categorization of religious forums to post in. It just seems peculiar.

Would a person such as me possibly be a member of this subforum, even if I am more eastern than western?

 

[Erebus]

Simply put, there are Hindu and Buddhist DIRs already, which pretty much left Western LHP in the LHP area

If you consider yourself Left Hand Path, then by all means post here. However, most of the members in this DIR follow the Western version and as such will be approaching things from that perspective. Obviously you're better off in the main LHP DIR rather than the one for Satanism etc.

 

[Yadon]

Simply put, there are Hindu and Buddhist DIRs already, which pretty much left Western LHP in the LHP area

If you consider yourself Left Hand Path, then by all means post here. However, most of the members in this DIR follow the Western version and as such will be approaching things from that perspective. Obviously you're better off in the main LHP DIR rather than the one for Satanism etc.

All right then, I suppose I am a member of here. I have been walking closer to the Left as of late anyway.

Also ironically enough, I am somewhat familiar with Satanism (and a bit of every religion). One of my first teachers I ever had was a Satanist, back when I was in college. He seemed more like a neo-pagan than anything else in retrospect, however.

Perhaps I should have asked the better question of why the others in this forum use the terminology for RHP and LHP, instead of say different terminology.

 

[Erebus]

All right then, I suppose I am a member of here. I have been walking closer to the Left as of late anyway.

Also ironically enough, I am somewhat familiar with Satanism (and a bit of every religion). One of my first teachers I ever had was a Satanist, back when I was in college. He seemed more like a neo-pagan than anything else in retrospect, however.

Perhaps I should have asked the better question of why the others in this forum use the terminology for RHP and LHP, instead of say different terminology.

Welcome aboard then

As to the last part of your question, I suppose it's simply the evolution of language as you mentioned earlier. When Left Hand Path ideas were introduced to the West, they inevitably started to change to reflect Western Culture. Over time, the meaning changed to the point where it becomes necessary to distinguish between Western and Dharmic/Eastern Left Hand Path.
For what it's worth, I personally don't find the distinction between Western RHP and LHP to be all that useful. I won't go into the reasons why here as that could end up as a long, off topic waffling session.

 

[Adramelek]

For me as a more Western LHPather, the RHP is about subjugation of the individual Self and will to that of some higher power(s). Where as on the LHP the individual Self and will become the center and primary focus of ones Magical Work. This does not mean that I don't Work with other Forms or gods/godesses, but rather I perceive them as sources of knowledge and as kindred spirits, and not as beings I need to or who require me to worship or please them, kneel to or make sacrifices to.

For ever in the Black Flame of Set.
/Adramelek\

 

[EtuMalku]

From my understanding and experience, Eastern Vamachara, though decidedly antinomian and unorthodox, is still seeking absolution into the objective universe and thus a Right Hand Path.

Western LHP seeks separation from this objective universe and exaltation of the higher Self into autotheism

 

[Kemble]

I know Anton Lavey was the first to codify a left hand path in terms of ends rather than only the means, but he used the label sparingly and ultimately Satanism is Satanism; it doesn't have much relation to anything else.

I don't follow the distinctions too closely. I see the sensual universe as good, pain bad, death final, magic a mental technology in extension of the self's control, and want to stick around this world rather than be a 'spiritual tourist.' Whatever that gets labeled as may end up "left" of most religious views but ultimately the labels make no difference.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

From my understanding and experience, Eastern Vamachara, though decidedly antinomian and unorthodox, is still seeking absolution into the objective universe and thus a Right Hand Path.

According to Western thought only.

 

[EtuMalku]

According to Western thought only.

What would be the end goal of Eastern Vamachara then in Eastern thought?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What would be the end goal of Eastern Vamachara then in Eastern thought?

Moksha is primarily the goal in most, if not all, Eastern thoughts.

 

[EtuMalku]

In Hinduism, moksha is a union with Brahman, this is also known as Brahmabhava, Brahmajnana and Brahmastithi.

In Dvaita, moksha is also the eternal union with God (Vishnu) and considered the highest perfection of existence (close to Western LHP but not exact).

 

[Yadon]

For me as a more Western LHPather, the RHP is about subjugation of the individual Self and will to that of some higher power(s). Where as on the LHP the individual Self and will become the center and primary focus of ones Magical Work. This does not mean that I don't Work with other Forms or gods/godesses, but rather I perceive them as sources of knowledge and as kindred spirits, and not as beings I need to or who require me to worship or please them, kneel to or make sacrifices to.

For ever in the Black Flame of Set.
/Adramelek\

I don't see what limits one from fulfilling their own will while also paying respect to something more ancient and powerful than them.

I see my own will as concurrent with a number of deities. If one wanted me to do something that I truly do not want to do, I just won't do it.

A last question, would it be subjugation to obey the law and pay taxes? Even when your goals line up with the purpose for taxes and keeping order in society?

 

[Kemble]

Yadon, breaking the law brings consequences either in a court of law or someone's personal jusice, and paying taxes eventually goes to the helpful aspects of society that we enjoy (and not paying them brings consequences). So from a purely selfish POV, it's not subjegation; it's wise decision making.

Keep in mind what LHP means (in the "western" context) is a nurturance and love of the ego, of yourself. Society and law exist to serve you. The reason you don't have to walk the streets with an assault rifle to get to the grocery store and feed yourself.

I see my own will as concurrent with a number of deities.

That's nice but, in "western" LHP, they aren't your gods. If they turn out to be more than your own unconscious ramblings, they are at best curious acquaintences. You are the highest embodiment of life. Your flesh (and mind) is in the most literal sense the focal point, the center, of the universe.

In Satanism, this is the pride of Satan that led to his fall from heaven, and the flame Prometheus stole from the gods. If you ever come to feel that pulsating sense of pride, defiance, and self-importance, and often it feels like a real electrical force, you may be knocking on the door of the "true" left hand path.

 

[Yadon]

Just to clarify, I am not intending to debate anyone, just give my own opinion and why I might disagree with the other views here. I hope most of you will understand my level of skepticism, because from what i understand that is one of the values of the more modern traditions represented here.

If anyone would like to debate on any of the points i made or others made I would be happy to participate in the debate section of the site.

Yadon, breaking the law brings consequences either in a court of law or someone's personal jusice, and paying taxes eventually goes to the helpful aspects of society that we enjoy (and not paying them brings consequences). So from a purely selfish POV, it's not subjegation; it's wise decision making.

I don't see why this same logic couldn't apply to doing what a god wants you to do and you are blessed, or else they damn you to hell. Which I don't advocate that reasoning, but I'm saying by the same standards it applies to government.

My point being to ask where the line between beneficial obedience and "submitting" is. I personally don't know myself but I don't know if it really matters, it's an abstraction and such questions don't help when your in a real life situation and must decide if you would prefer to listen to one with power telling you to do something you don't want to.

The best guess I could give is when the person in power starts cheating or abusing you.

Keep in mind what LHP means (in the "western" context) is a nurturance and love of the ego, of yourself. Society and law exist to serve you. The reason you don't have to walk the streets with an assault rifle to get to the grocery store and feed yourself

I think they exist to serve everyone, but as well the example you give, wouldn't everyone be LHP then? We ALL want to nurture and love ourselves, take care of our emotional. physical and other needs. Why is making sure your happy a LHP thing instead of a general human thing?

That's nice but, in "western" LHP, they aren't your gods. If they turn out to be more than your own unconscious ramblings, they are at best curious acquaintences. You are the highest embodiment of life. Your flesh (and mind) is in the most literal sense the focal point, the center, of the universe.

I don't see how someone can allow others to have an egocentric view while having one themselves. It's a logical contradiction. Why would I argue that any of us are more important than say a fellow who saves lives on a regular basis? What measure is there for how my subjectivist view of myself (which is likely to be self-deceptive) is reality when there are far more people out in the world doing productive, measurable things such as building houses, saving lives, or making great art or even farming?

I am willing to bet that most people here just clock in at work and clock out, hang out with friends and generally keep to their own interests but don't actually contribute a lot to society other than their taxes and maybe the occasional friend or family member that needs help. And that's all fine and dandy but I wouldn't ever say that makes them the center of everything to exist. That's a very arrogant and delusional view of reality.

And I don't just say that out of nowhere, psychologically speaking children and teenagers are egocentric, but most people outgrow it past their early to mid 20's. For an adult to honestly think they are the center of the universe is generally seen as a psychosis or delusion. At the very least it is not being honest with one's self.

But I don't want to start debating on this part of the site. If we wish to go further than this now that we have both stated opposing viewpoints, we should start a topic in the debate section.

In Satanism, this is the pride of Satan that led to his fall from heaven, and the flame Prometheus stole from the gods. If you ever come to feel that pulsating sense of pride, defiance, and self-importance, and often it feels like a real electrical force, you may be knocking on the door of the "true" left hand path.

But Prometheus and Lucifer did that for all of mankind and had made personal sacrifices for bettering other people, not for themselves. Satan/Lucifer and Prometheus both very much suffered to give something to makind.

This is why I find it strange when prominent Satanists say that Satanism is a very selfish doctrine.

There was nothing I saw that was selfish that either Lucifer/Satan did or that Prometheus did. Maybe they were very prideful but in both myths I don't see anything essentially egocentric or selfish, but rather things done to benefit these "lesser" beings called humans. So why then would a Satanist embody selfishness when their symbol/god never exhibited those characteristics?

I don't mean to argue, this is actually my exact view on Luciferianism; self sacrifice for a greater good of humanity, even if you are going to be seen as the bad guy. I doubt most Luciferians would disagree with me but that is the literary message I get from the Lucifer and Promethean stories.

 

[Yadon]

I think I may of accidentally mislead people into thinking I believe in externally real and independent "gods" that exist literally. This is in all honestly not my stance, except in those situations where it is convenient.

In Hinduism, moksha is a union with Brahman, this is also known as Brahmabhava, Brahmajnana and Brahmastithi.

In Dvaita, moksha is also the eternal union with God (Vishnu) and considered the highest perfection of existence (close to Western LHP but not exact).

They are all personifications of the same thing, just put into different boxes and labelled differently. So I don't take issue with exchanging another word for what is more or less the same thing, just different labels and personifications of the same "allness".

 

[crossfire]

I think I may of accidentally mislead people into thinking I believe in externally real and independent "gods" that exist literally.

These are exactly what western lhp are striving to become, no?

They are all personifications of the same thing, just put into different boxes and labelled differently. So I don't take issue with exchanging another word for what is more or less the same thing, just different labels and personifications of the same "allness".

What, if anything, is distinct from this "allness?" Anything at all?

 

[Yadon]

These are exactly what western lhp are striving to become, no?

What, if anything, is distinct from this "allness?" Anything at all?

Did you just ask if the entire sum of western Left Hand Path is to strive to become nontheist? I'm asking this for clarification.

Also, it's easy to distinguish something from the allness. Just put it into a box and label it. That's how we get concepts like "me" and "you" and "money" and the "leaf" being separate from the "branch" from the "tree" ect ect.

At the end of the day they are still just boxes.

 

[crossfire]

Did you just ask if the entire sum of western Left Hand Path is to strive to become nontheist? I'm asking this for clarification.

Nope. I can't speak for the entire sum of the western lhp at all. I really can't speak for it at all. I don't think anyone can, since it is all about individuals, and striving to become individuals.

Also, it's easy to distinguish something from the allness. Just put it into a box and label it. That's how we get concepts like "me" and "you" and "money" and the "leaf" being separate from the "branch" from the "tree" ect ect.

At the end of the day they are still just boxes.

Is not "allness" just as much of a conceptual box?

 

[Yadon]

Nope. I can't speak for the entire sum of the western lhp at all. I really can't speak for it at all. I don't think anyone can, since it is all about individuals, and striving to become individuals.


Is not "allness" just as much of a conceptual box?

That's what I don't get, is why anyone would need to strive to be an individual. It's something we all do automatically if someone ha to try to be themselves then they are fronting. One can embrace individualism but in my opinion that's more about seeing everyone as individuals, not just yourself. It's not a one way street.

As for allness being a box, only in so much that the entire universe is one large self-wrapping box with literally nothing outside of it. So I guess it could be considered a box, but only a box in that there can't be any larger box. But it can't be a box, because boxing something in implies there is something outside of the box. With the allness/universe that is literally and physically impossible. So no, it can't be a box. Likewise the idea of allness can't be a box as it's not segregating anything. When I say allness I literally mean the sum of all things.

Now as to where I get to boxes, a box is a portion of that sum. But wheather we choose to define that box as the leaf or the tree, or the earth, or any parts that make it up is entirely arbitrary. Sure, I could say that my nail is it's own thing but at the same time it's part of my finger. Similarly the bigger we get as to what things are a part of (when before we considered them distinct as whole onto their own) we reach a critical point when we talk about the entire Universe...

So I suppose you could call the entire Universe a box, a mental idea. But I don't think that's actually true. Rather what I'm saying is that only one thing objectively exists NOT as an idea but as a real independent thing, and that is the Universe. Any boxes we make out to distinguish a part from another part is the creation of dualism. It's really useful, but at the same time nothing is ever independent of it's environment or the cosmos, it only exists in relation to it's distinction from other objects.

Also lastly I don't see how the idea of an allness (sum of all parts) is a boxed way of thinking. That's like saying that thinking that stars exist is thinking inside a box. the sum of all things has to exist because things exist and all their physical movements happen in relation to the entire system. I'm not just making up some jibber jabber about nondualism but I'm talking about very real physical dynamics.

 

[crossfire]

That's what I don't get, is why anyone would need to strive to be an individual. It's something we all do automatically if someone ha to try to be themselves then they are fronting.

If you are doing something automatically, you are acting out of programming. The question becomes one of whether you are aware of that programming or not, and whether you approve of that programming or not.

One can embrace individualism but in my opinion that's more about seeing everyone as individuals, not just yourself. It's not a one way street.

Agreed.

As for allness being a box, only in so much that the entire universe is one large self-wrapping box with literally nothing outside of it. So I guess it could be considered a box, but only a box in that there can't be any larger box. But it can't be a box, because boxing something in implies there is something outside of the box. With the allness/universe that is literally and physically impossible. So no, it can't be a box. Likewise the idea of allness can't be a box as it's not segregating anything.

You are segregating "literally nothing," (another concept) as per your own words highlighted above.

When I say allness I literally mean the sum of all things.

Is this a static concept? Is the "All" an absolute, or does it change over time or with perception?

Now as to where I get to boxes, a box is a portion of that sum.

Is the box/concept of "nothing" part of "nothing?"

But wheather we choose to define that box as the leaf or the tree, or the earth, or any parts that make it up is entirely arbitrary. Sure, I could say that my nail is it's own thing but at the same time it's part of my finger. Similarly the bigger we get as to what things are a part of (when before we considered them distinct as whole onto their own) we reach a critical point when we talk about the entire Universe...

You reach the point of purely conceptual thinking, in other words.

So I suppose you could call the entire Universe a box, a mental idea. But I don't think that's actually true. Rather what I'm saying is that only one thing objectively exists NOT as an idea but as a real independent thing, and that is the Universe. Any boxes we make out to distinguish a part from another part is the creation of dualism. It's really useful, but at the same time nothing is ever independent of it's environment or the cosmos, it only exists in relation to it's distinction from other objects.

So, everything is absolutely relativistic, then?

Also lastly I don't see how the idea of an allness (sum of all parts) is a boxed way of thinking. That's like saying that thinking that stars exist is thinking inside a box. the sum of all things has to exist because things exist and all their physical movements happen in relation to the entire system. I'm not just making up some jibber jabber about nondualism but I'm talking about very real physical dynamics.

Is creation static, or dynamic? Are new parts coming into existence, or is it all a zero sum game, in your opinion?