What Is Lhp Options

Well . . . lets start this new forum off with an obvious.
What do people consider to be Left Hand Path?

Of course, this question isn't intending or expecting everyone (or anyone) to agree on a definition . . . or even to be a thread building to a consensus.
Only as a way of describing the varieties of the concept - LHP

I'm personally not so fond of the Blavaskian use of LHP as describing a state of immorality (spiritually), nor do I find Crowley's idea that is the failed adept acceptable.

For me, in a very general . . . its the process of developing the self (spiritually and materially) rather then sacrificing or dissolving the self.
Being fully and singly responsible for oneself and ones actions.
Being entitled to everything one can be (materially and spiritually)
And that the world around each of us (phenomonally and spiritually) is designed for personal integration and application.
Many aspects of the above are best presented and developed through acts of Love, alturism and compassion. As well, all require self-confidence, a distinct level of self-worth, and a strongly developing self-knowledge.

anyway . . . others thoughts . . ?

This post has been edited by palindroem: Jan 25 2007, 04:37 PM

To me LHP and RHP is a somewhat dated Medieval concept. Guilt drives thick definitions of LHP -- not the guilt of the practitioner, but of the critics. I don't consider myself either (middle way, all the way, true Buddhist that way... Buddha showed that the middle way is the only viable way in the end after years of struggling with ultra right hand path -- ascetism -- and after being brought up as a self-indulgent prince (left hand?).

But we're well past the dark ages. Self-path is the only one that truly matters in my humble opinion. That isn't to say that the self can't be generous, giving, helpful, charitable, noble, caring... (or self-centered and closed if that's the path chosen) it's just that defining paths, and making someone feel guilty about their own path by trying to pin an archetypal LHP or RHP on them, seems wrong for the twenty-first century? Just my feelings on it. I think all paths take us on journeys, ultimately, to the same destination. Some of us take short cuts, some of us are quite comfortable taking the scenic route.

To me LHP and RHP is a somewhat dated Medieval concept. Guilt drives thick definitions of LHP -- not the guilt of the practitioner, but of the critics. I don't consider myself either (middle way, all the way, true Buddhist that way... Buddha showed that the middle way is the only viable way in the end after years of struggling with ultra right hand path -- ascetism -- and after being brought up as a self-indulgent prince (left hand?).

But we're well past the dark ages. Self-path is the only one that truly matters in my humble opinion. That isn't to say that the self can't be generous, giving, helpful, charitable, noble, caring... (or self-centered and closed if that's the path chosen) it's just that defining paths, and making someone feel guilty about their own path by trying to pin an archetypal LHP or RHP on them, seems wrong for the twenty-first century? Just my feelings on it. I think all paths take us on journeys, ultimately, to the same destination. Some of us take short cuts, some of us are quite comfortable taking the scenic route.

There is no one right path... we all take the path that calls for us.

True words you speak, I agree.