EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I don't understand where you got that from?
How are these two terms arbitrary? Do you know what arbitrary means? An entire occult community uses these terms and has since the 19th century.
-
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!
Why is the Luciferian DIR still considered a subset of the LHP here?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
One cannot follow the RHP and the LHP at the same time. It would be impossible to absolve the self into God while at the same time becoming a god.
Unless of course, you are into solipsism.
Well if everyone else is doing it... how "Left Hand Path"!
It's always a shame to see a "Luciferian" with such a limited perspective. There is absolutely no mutual exclusivity between absorption as well as self-deification. One is part of the All at literally all times, by definition, and certainly nothing contradicts your "LHP" in experiencing "Oneness" through meditation, drugs, and so on. Likewise, one can carve out their own self-deific niche in the universe and still absorb into the all whenever they want.
I don't see how it would work with solipsism, actually.
Now that I have an actual second to relax, let me explain.
I understand the use of L/RHP is important and a rather fundamental aspect of western occultism. That's why I use the term, despite hating them.
Anyways, there are two different LHPs, the eastern and the western, with the former being grounded in heterodxy yet a seemingly RHP idea of "enlightenment", and the latter being about self-deification. Right there we have a huge problem, as the two different ideas are generally all simply considered "LHP". The "original" E-LHP sought union, a contradiction according to the W-LHP.
Specifically to the point being made, it certainly is possible to seek union as well as self-deification. This idea works most clearly with Crowley's philosophy and/or holy text, which most are familiar with, making it a great example. On one hand, union with the all is encouraged as it leads to ecstacy. However, it is made very clear that one is *always* part of the All at all times, we simply cannot always be aware of it because it is literally unfathomable. It then goes on to encourage self-deification through True Will, and blah blah blah, I don't need to down speak to you.
I understand the use of L/RHP is important and a rather fundamental aspect of western occultism. That's why I use the term, despite hating them.
Anyways, there are two different LHPs, the eastern and the western, with the former being grounded in heterodxy yet a seemingly RHP idea of "enlightenment", and the latter being about self-deification. Right there we have a huge problem, as the two different ideas are generally all simply considered "LHP". The "original" E-LHP sought union, a contradiction according to the W-LHP.
Specifically to the point being made, it certainly is possible to seek union as well as self-deification. This idea works most clearly with Crowley's philosophy and/or holy text, which most are familiar with, making it a great example. On one hand, union with the all is encouraged as it leads to ecstacy. However, it is made very clear that one is *always* part of the All at all times, we simply cannot always be aware of it because it is literally unfathomable. It then goes on to encourage self-deification through True Will, and blah blah blah, I don't need to down speak to you.
Have you ever considered "union" as being analogous with individuation?
Metaphysical solipsism--your mind is all that exists.
Then the duality would not even be possible for consideration.
Of course, it's another way to see it and further shows that the two are not mutually exclusive, showing that the W-L/RHP distinction is silly.
Mequa
Neo-Epicurean
That sounds like a logical contradiction. But I don't think logic applies here in such a straightforward manner.
I have known several mystics who embrace both mystical union with the All (RHP), AND individuation (in the Jungian sense, which would be more LHP). To them the individual ego (in Hindu terms the Jiva) is still highly important, while also viewed as a figment or illusion. Westernised forms of mysticism often include a hefty dose of individuation and individualism, in addition to mystical union.
As Timothy Freke put it based on his analysis of Gnosticism, the psychic (relating to the psyche) path, and the pneumatic (relating to the pneuma, or nous), are both important. One does not simply end when the other begins. I am not into mysticism or the occult so much these days, but I still have a knowledge base from my past involvement.
The two paths, presented in this forum, are not as mutually exclusive as your post suggests.
I'm in agreement with Etu here. From my own Setian understanding, the seeking after and attempts at absolving the self or psyche back into becoming one with the objective universe, or God, or nature, are experiments in futility. The Self/psyche is a permanent part of the human condition, it is infused within our very DNA. The very acts, methods, idea of Self-dissolution into nature/God are willful manifestations of the conscious self anyway, and quite frankly, self-delusionary.
Last edited:
This is just silly. Dissolution into the all is simply a temporary recognization of a constant, present fact; that we are One with the All. It's straight absurd to look at something like the All god of mysticism and, even for a second, imagine that you could somehow be separated from it.
That doesn't address the point at all. It is a statement of fact that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Clinging to "the All" actually creates a duality--that of the one who clings and that which is being clung to. So much for oneness.
Perception of duality is absolutely irrelevant, perception doesn't change objective reality. Perhaps the perception of duality, enforced by the laws of logic, is even the point as it allows for the ecstacy of union as well as self-deification.
Perception is very relevant. How can you claim to be a light bringer and say perception is irrelevant?
Way to twist my words. In the context of the conversation, perception of duality would not change the fact that one is always part of the all.
Even if you have lost touch with reality? Now we are getting back to the realm of union again, no? Sure, your body's material workings might still be part of "the all," but your mind is off in la-la land if you lose touch with reality.
Self-consciousness, higher intelligence, abstract thought, critical thinking, creative thought and will, independence of mind and will, all these things did not originate from the natural order of things as they are all antithetical to the non-thinking mindless mechanical order of the cosmos. Just because they exist within the natural order does not automatically say that they are of that order.