'western' and 'eastern' LHP

[Kapalika]

It would seem that many of us see little if no distinction between the so called "eastern" and "western" Left Hand Path, while others see them as totally different.

I wasn't sure why this was, as historically the term Left Hand Path fell into one of 4 categories:

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.

Definition 2 is rarely if ever used these days. The third definition is mostly used almost entirely by Satanists. The first definition has been used for at least 1,400 years to my knowledge (don't know of any older traditions). The fourth definition has been used since at least the breakoffs from the Church of Satan in the 70's and by many individual practitioners ever since in western occult practices.

The wikipedia page here for Vamachara page addresses the first usage, with mentions of others later on.

But it would seem that in 2012 a book was written using a newer definition of Left Hand Path..

That is defining a meaning with a new fifth usage. I won't comment on the accuracy of it's claims as I've not read it, but I will say it's just one book with one view. I'm not sure how prevalent this view was before this book, but I've seen a lot recently use it's language and I don't recall hearing much if any of that in all the years I've been involved in the Left Hand Path.

For those unaware, "Vamachara" or Vamamarga means the exact same thing as "Left Hand Path" and is synonymous with the first and fourth usage. This is the historical, ancient meaning of the term. Anything else is appropriation.

Whether or not you agree that this appropriation is good or bad is irrelevant for our time in this DIR. I have heard some assert that this new 5th definition is the "true" definition if this "western" Left Hand Path, but the truth is, if you want to be technical, that definitions 2 through 5 actually are the "Western" usages. And usage 4 is the same thing as usage 1, just with western occultism instead of eastern mysticism. I've also heard some assert that the 5th usage isn't at all Left Hand Path.

We need to be mindful of not trying to decide who is "real" Left Hand Path or not, not just out of respect for each other's beliefs but out of respect for the forum rules. I have heard some suggest that those under the first usage and by extension the 4th usage shouldn't post here, but the truth is they are just as Left Hand Path than the other definitions. They should have just much as a right to be here, seeing as they are older and more established usages of the term.

edit: fixed amazon link

 

[EtuMalku]

It would seem that many of us see little if no distinction between the so called "eastern" and "western" Left Hand Path, while others see them as totally different.

I wasn't sure why this was, as historically the term Left Hand Path fell into one of 4 categories:

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.

Definition 2 is rarely if ever used these days. The third definition is mostly used almost entirely by Satanists. The first definition has been used for at least 1,400 years to my knowledge (don't know of any older traditions). The fourth definition has been used since at least the breakoffs from the Church of Satan in the 70's and by many individual practitioners ever since in western occult practices.

The wikipedia page here for Vamachara page addresses the first usage, with mentions of others later on.

But it would seem that in 2012 a book was written this is using a much newer definition of the term.

That is defining a meaning with a new fifth usage. I won't comment on the accuracy of it's claims as I've not read it, but I will say it's just one book with one view. I'm not sure how prevalent this view was before this book, but I've seen a lot recently use it's language and I don't recall hearing much if any of that in all the years I've been involved in the Left Hand Path.

For those unaware, "Vamachara" or Vamamarga means the exact same thing as "Left Hand Path" and is synonymous with the first and fourth usage. This is the historical, ancient meaning of the term. Anything else is appropriation.

Whether or not you agree that this appropriation is good or bad is irrelevant for our time in this DIR. I have heard some assert that this new 5th definition is the "true" definition if this "western" Left Hand Path, but the truth is, if you want to be technical, that definitions 2 through 5 actually are the "Western" usages. And usage 4 is the same thing as usage 1, just with western occultism instead of eastern mysticism. I've also heard some assert that the 5th usage isn't at all Left Hand Path.

We need to be mindful of not trying to decide who is "real" Left Hand Path or not, not just out of respect for each other's beliefs but out of respect for the forum rules. I have heard some suggest that those under the first usage and by extension the 4th usage shouldn't post here, but the truth is they are just as Left Hand Path than the other definitions. They should have just much as a right to be here, seeing as they are older and more established usages of the term.

I find nothing to disagree with here, well said Mandi

 

[Kapalika]

I accidentally deleted something in that draft before posting it... I was going to link to the wikipedia page for Right and Left Hand Paths At the section detailing the history of the term in the west and mention that the wikipedia page mentions the second and fourth usage within the first two paragraphs of the article as well.

I find nothing to disagree with here, well said Mandi

Wow good thing we are finally agreeing on something

 

[EtuMalku]

I accidentally deleted something in that draft before posting it... I was going to link to the wikipedia page for Right and Left Hand Paths At the section detailing the history of the term in the west and mention that the wikipedia page mentions the second and fourth usage within the first two paragraphs of the article as well.



Wow good thing we are finally agreeing on something

I asked this same question in various forums and am surprised how little understanding the majority of people have about this subject.

 

[1137]

I was thinking that we should get a sticky thread going with each of us, separately, describing our understanding of the LHP, with no debate or discussion allowed. Maybe a mod can even set it up and keep it clean. Then we can drop this whole thing and get back to growth and understanding.

 

[EtuMalku]

I was thinking that we should get a sticky thread going with each of us, separately, describing our understanding of the LHP, with no debate or discussion allowed. Maybe a mod can even set it up and keep it clean. Then we can drop this whole thing and get back to growth and understanding.

Mandi's last statement I am in agreement with

 

[Kapalika]

Okay I got a moment to post (busy day).

Anyways it did occur to me that I have heard of the fifth definition I gave (as defined by that book's description on the amazon page and by others here). However It wasn't as a singular system. I had heard of different aspects of it in various forums before (luciferians tend to self deify through archetypes for example). A lot of the western LHP falls into the third category imo as the "egotistical" just meant that individualization and what some would call non union' deification. Some forms of deification in western LHP would fall under 4, depending on the bent.

However the book basically marks from what I can tell the first time anyone used every single feature of it together. Temple of Set comes closest to category five but I've never seen or read anything indicating they were big in antinomism. I had even heard members on their radio cast use the term "evil" (although defined as "stupid" as in something like senseless violence).

I'm fine with whatever people practice here, but I think what caused a lot of issues for me and some others was this sentiment from the book description:

Flowers explains that while the right-hand path seeks union with and thus dependence on God, the left-hand path seeks a “higher law” based on knowledge and power... Following a carefully crafted definition of a true adherent of the left-hand path based on two main principles--self-deification and challenge to the conventions of “good” and “evil”

This definition disagrees with the more traditional ones of 1 and 4, but does have some overlaps with it. However; the main point of contention is the idea that "eastern left hand path" is "right hand path" by these definitions. This can be purely about the definition but it can and has also played out that some of us also don't agree that our eastern religion(s) don't even wholly qualify for those qualities of the "right hand Path" and that a lot of eastern left hand paths have more in common with the latter definition than the former. I think this disagreement came about because the concept of god, self, universe and "union" are very different in eastern religions than it is in western. So it's at least partially a language and cultural barrier.

I think as @1137 suggested a sticky outlining the different kinds of Left Hand Path, both eastern and western variations, would be a good way to address the differences. even within the western there are differences between the paths in how they define it.

 

[Kapalika]

It also seems that many western left hand pathers also felt that their positons were mispresented... anyways I think 1137s new topic is a step in the right direction. We could try to figure out a list of a few different takes on it both eastern and western for the sticky.

 

[Kapalika]

I was thinking that we should get a sticky thread going with each of us, separately, describing our understanding of the LHP, with no debate or discussion allowed. Maybe a mod can even set it up and keep it clean. Then we can drop this whole thing and get back to growth and understanding.

I had a second draft based on my 5 point description, we could all edit and add to this for a short and sweet sticky;

As a generalized overview, the term Left Hand Path is used by those who believe in or practice one or more of the following:

1. To refer to the historical Left Hand path of Vāmācāra / Vāmamārga ("Left Hand Path"); a "mode" of practice and worship that is heterodox and usually Tantric. It is contrasted by Dakshinachara (Right Hand Path) Tantra. The paths vary based on taste, culture, initiation and lineage. Left Hand Path sects exist in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and are considered extreme to the status quo, particularly in relation to Vedic sects.

2. Used by occultists to refer to the attitudes and practice of either following specific ethical codes and social conventions (Right Hand Path) or promoting the breaking of taboos and moral relativism. The Left Hand Path in this context is based on the Tantric definition and can be considered Antinomian but practitioners may not necessarily claim to practice Black Magick.

3. A term used by Anton LaVey in The Satanic Bible to differentiate LaVeyan Satanism from other religions as hedonistic; "Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal—all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path." The Church of Satan (which LaVey founded) has since expanded the meaning to also mean metaphorical self-deification.

4. To describe an occult path of self-actualized deification through antinomian, heterodox practices. To those practicing this path, The Left Hand Path is seen as individuating an isolated consciousness to godhood. It is typically dualistic and it's practices are very individualistic.

5. (not sure what to put here, I'm thinking there has to be another type of forum I'm failing to recall.)

Some practitioners of the Left Hand Path may group these according to "Eastern" and "Western" dichotomies. Many religions or sects may fall fully into just one of these categories or fall into multiple categories in different ways. The Left Hand Path is highly individualistic and so the exact beliefs, tenants, goals and attitudes can vary greatly between different traditions, organizations and practitioners.

I think dropping the 2nd definition from the first draft is important as it doesn't reflect self described left hand pathers, but maybe somewhere else in the sticky it can mention it. There could maybe be a tiny history part before or after the list that briefly goes over the history of the usage. But I don't know if we can really say it any better than wikipedia did, maybe a little more contextually and concisely though.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It would seem that many of us see little if no distinction between the so called "eastern" and "western" Left Hand Path, while others see them as totally different.

I wasn't sure why this was, as historically the term Left Hand Path fell into one of 4 categories:

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.

Definition 2 is rarely if ever used these days. The third definition is mostly used almost entirely by Satanists. The first definition has been used for at least 1,400 years to my knowledge (don't know of any older traditions). The fourth definition has been used since at least the breakoffs from the Church of Satan in the 70's and by many individual practitioners ever since in western occult practices.

The wikipedia page here for Vamachara page addresses the first usage, with mentions of others later on.

But it would seem that in 2012 a book was written using a newer definition of Left Hand Path..

That is defining a meaning with a new fifth usage. I won't comment on the accuracy of it's claims as I've not read it, but I will say it's just one book with one view. I'm not sure how prevalent this view was before this book, but I've seen a lot recently use it's language and I don't recall hearing much if any of that in all the years I've been involved in the Left Hand Path.

For those unaware, "Vamachara" or Vamamarga means the exact same thing as "Left Hand Path" and is synonymous with the first and fourth usage. This is the historical, ancient meaning of the term. Anything else is appropriation.

Whether or not you agree that this appropriation is good or bad is irrelevant for our time in this DIR. I have heard some assert that this new 5th definition is the "true" definition if this "western" Left Hand Path, but the truth is, if you want to be technical, that definitions 2 through 5 actually are the "Western" usages. And usage 4 is the same thing as usage 1, just with western occultism instead of eastern mysticism. I've also heard some assert that the 5th usage isn't at all Left Hand Path.

We need to be mindful of not trying to decide who is "real" Left Hand Path or not, not just out of respect for each other's beliefs but out of respect for the forum rules. I have heard some suggest that those under the first usage and by extension the 4th usage shouldn't post here, but the truth is they are just as Left Hand Path than the other definitions. They should have just much as a right to be here, seeing as they are older and more established usages of the term.

edit: fixed amazon link

I don't see them as 'different' so much as one is defined and one is an arbitrary mess of whatever. It's hard to compare angles with a blob of jello.

 

[Kapalika]

I don't see them as 'different' so much as one is defined and one is an arbitrary mess of whatever. It's hard to compare angles with a blob of jello.

I essentially feel the same way. However it is a common theme I've noticed over the years so I put "some" and "may" as qualifiers. Perhaps I could balance that more explicitly by adding on the end of that paragraph:

"However many also see little if no distinction, and perceive such divisions as arbitrary and/or secretarian."

I think that would cover the other end of the spectrum in that regard.

This of course being added to my second draft in post #9

 

[EtuMalku]

Here are a few quotes from several Shaivites?

• In Shaivism in general, Shiva is the name for the absolute or transcendental consciousness
• The Kashmir Shaivite is not so much concerned with worshiping a personal God as he is with attaining the transcendental state of Siva consciousness
• Sadhana leads to the assimilation of the object (world) in the subject (I) until the Self (Shiva) stands revealed as one with the universe
  
• The goal-liberation-is sustained recognition (pratyabhijna) of one's true Self as nothing but Shiva
• The individual is a mini Shiva, who, when he recognizes his true self, becomes one with the universal consciousness
• The attainment of Shivatva may be understood as complete merger in Shiva

Given these tenets from the stance of the Western LHP Kashmir Shaivism is a RHP as the adherents are in some way or another in union with an external deity (Shiva) and not one's unique, individual higher Self separate from the objective universe and from external influences such as deities, of which the WLHP non-theists do not believe in.

Sources were:

Subhash Kak
Dr. B.N. Kalla
R. K. Sapru
Dr. C. L. Raina
Prof. M. L. Kokiloo
Dr. R. K. Kaw
Shri Jankinath Kaul 'Kamal'

 

[Kapalika]

Here are a few quotes from several Shaivites?

• In Shaivism in general, Shiva is the name for the absolute or transcendental consciousness
• The Kashmir Shaivite is not so much concerned with worshiping a personal God as he is with attaining the transcendental state of Siva consciousness
• Sadhana leads to the assimilation of the object (world) in the subject (I) until the Self (Shiva) stands revealed as one with the universe
  
• The goal-liberation-is sustained recognition (pratyabhijna) of one's true Self as nothing but Shiva
• The individual is a mini Shiva, who, when he recognizes his true self, becomes one with the universal consciousness
• The attainment of Shivatva may be understood as complete merger in Shiva

Given these tenets from the stance of the Western LHP Kashmir Shaivism is a RHP as the adherents are in some way or another in union with an external deity (Shiva) and not one's unique, individual higher Self separate from the objective universe and from external influences such as deities, of which the WLHP non-theists do not believe in.

Sources were:

Subhash Kak
Dr. B.N. Kalla
R. K. Sapru
Dr. C. L. Raina
Prof. M. L. Kokiloo
Dr. R. K. Kaw
Shri Jankinath Kaul 'Kamal'

Your view is covered in the 2nd draft I put up.

However I will also say, as a practicing, Left Hand Path Shaivite, that I believe you are misinterpreting the intended meaning behind those words. As well some of those statements appear to be coming from different sects. It's of my opinion that those statements can't be considered as a whole since some are also contradicting the other statements (for example mini shiva and 'merging' with shiva in the last 2 contradict the first, 2nd, and third points. It sounds like a dualism vs nondual divide but could also be a matter of perspective).

I don't see this line of discussion being any more productive because it quickly becomes a debate over the validity of one interpretation or the other. I didn't make this topic to prove or disprove anyone but to simply represent all the viewpoints on the matter and ask for mutual respect.

I've went ahead and made a dedicated topic for my idea of a sticky, since this one isn't explicitly about it. I gave it a poll too.

 

[EtuMalku]

Your view is covered in the 2nd draft I put up.

However I will also say, as a practicing, Left Hand Path Shaivite, that I believe you are misinterpreting the intended meaning behind those words. As well some of those statements appear to be coming from different sects. It's of my opinion that those statements can't be considered as a whole since some are also contradicting the other statements (for example mini shiva and 'merging' with shiva in the last 2 contradict the first, 2nd, and third points. It sounds like a dualism vs nondual divide but could also be a matter of perspective).

I don't see this line of discussion being any more productive because it quickly becomes a debate over the validity of one interpretation or the other. I didn't make this topic to prove or disprove anyone but to simply represent all the viewpoints on the matter and ask for mutual respect.

I've went ahead and made a dedicated topic for my idea of a sticky, since this one isn't explicitly about it. I gave it a poll too.

I wasn't intending to debate on this, perhaps these quotes are not from the LHP Shaivites? The non-dual / dual sides are also confusing
Good points

 

[EtuMalku]

I had a second draft based on my 5 point description, we could all edit and add to this for a short and sweet sticky;




I think dropping the 2nd definition from the first draft is important as it doesn't reflect self described left hand pathers, but maybe somewhere else in the sticky it can mention it. There could maybe be a tiny history part before or after the list that briefly goes over the history of the usage. But I don't know if we can really say it any better than wikipedia did, maybe a little more contextually and concisely though.

I'm not sure #4 is worded correctly as I understand it since that one seems closest to what I practice (and other too).

4. To describe an occult path of self-actualized deification through antinomian, heterodox practices. To those practicing this path, The Left Hand Path is seen as individuating an isolated consciousness to godhood. It is typically dualistic and it's practices are very individualistic.

One's isolate consciousness is already individuated and singular, not a part of the objective universe in any way. It 'is' the god/deity to which the adherent seeks to return to and/or bring down (so to speak) into their everyday existence while incarnate. Through various antinomian practices, as well as majiqal practices, the flow of energy is reversed and the objective universe is taken hold of for the benefit of the adherent.

 

[Kapalika]

I'm not sure #4 is worded correctly as I understand it since that one seems closest to what I practice (and other too).

One's isolate consciousness is already individuated and singular, not a part of the objective universe in any way. It 'is' the god/deity to which the adherent seeks to return to and/or bring down (so to speak) into their everyday existence while incarnate. Through various antinomian practices, as well as majiqal practices, the flow of energy is reversed and the objective universe is taken hold of for the benefit of the adherent.

"majiqal"?

Also how does something exist if it isn't part of reality?

Anyways if you want to help get that rolling by editing the draft I made a topic specifically for that proposal. Along with a poll for if people want it or not ect and open so people can help edit it for accuracy.

As far as accuracy that's why in I wasn't intending to debate on this, perhaps these quotes are not from the LHP Shaivites? The non-dual / dual sides are also confusing
Good points

Speaking from a philosophical standpoint, those statements would fall into both RHP and LHP Shaivism. The main difference I would think would be what implications one draws from those statements. Strictly speaking Kashmir Shaivism isn't Left Hand inherently IMO although many of it's schools are Left Hand Path.

The kind of implications that would make one Left Hand Path would relate to morality, good and evil, pure and impure, and the methods one might use or draw from that. Points 3 and 4 I would say articulate the best my beliefs on the subject, but as I've stressed at least a couple of times in the past Shiva in this context is symbolic and isn't the only Ishvara (divine inspiration) one can use for that place. Really it comes down to what the individual finds most powerful on a personal level.

The end result is the same though with a different god/symbol; deification through realizing one's nature and consciousness is congruent with cosmic nature and consciousnesses. Nothing actually changes per se other than one's perception is corrected (and the knowledge and power that bestows). As you described using your own spiritual practices to "take a hold of the objective universe for the benefit of the adherent" would seem to agree with what I am saying from what I understand.

Also, are you saying that one's isolate consciousness although already individualized and singular, doesn't realize the true extend of it until one is deified? Or is that part of an active process and not just one of perception?

And when you talk about objective universe, is this contrasted to subjective universes? Multiple subjects as seen as wholly separate from a singular object reality?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I don't get the belief that consciousness or intelligence is somehow magical or separate from nature. It's like these folk have never seen the results of brain damage or Alzheimer's.

One very physical blow with a physical hammer to the physical head can critically change or destroy this magical 'isolate self consciousness' with ease.

 

[EtuMalku]

"majiqal"?

Also how does something exist if it isn't part of reality?

Anyways if you want to help get that rolling by editing the draft I made a topic specifically for that proposal. Along with a poll for if people want it or not ect and open so people can help edit it for accuracy.



Speaking from a philosophical standpoint, those statements would fall into both RHP and LHP Shaivism. The main difference I would think would be what implications one draws from those statements. Strictly speaking Kashmir Shaivism isn't Left Hand inherently IMO although many of it's schools are Left Hand Path.

The kind of implications that would make one Left Hand Path would relate to morality, good and evil, pure and impure, and the methods one might use or draw from that. Points 3 and 4 I would say articulate the best my beliefs on the subject, but as I've stressed at least a couple of times in the past Shiva in this context is symbolic and isn't the only Ishvara (divine inspiration) one can use for that place. Really it comes down to what the individual finds most powerful on a personal level.

The end result is the same though with a different god/symbol; deification through realizing one's nature and consciousness is congruent with cosmic nature and consciousnesses. Nothing actually changes per se other than one's perception is corrected (and the knowledge and power that bestows). As you described using your own spiritual practices to "take a hold of the objective universe for the benefit of the adherent" would seem to agree with what I am saying from what I understand.

Also, are you saying that one's isolate consciousness although already individualized and singular, doesn't realize the true extend of it until one is deified? Or is that part of an active process and not just one of perception?

And when you talk about objective universe, is this contrasted to subjective universes? Multiple subjects as seen as wholly separate from a singular object reality?

Reality is not necessarily just the objective universe

 

[EtuMalku]

I don't get the belief that consciousness or intelligence is somehow magical or separate from nature. It's like these folk have never seen the results of brain damage or Alzheimer's.

One very physical blow with a physical hammer to the physical head can critically change or destroy this magical 'isolate self consciousness' with ease.

It might sever the connection, but that doesn't mean one's isolate intelligence is destroyed

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Oh, so puppet master theory then? Like a separate 'soul' sort of thing that just drives us like a car?

Serious question, trying to understand.