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

Greetings,

Very much agreed Palindrome. Although in my experience I'd also add to the LHP the statement that it focuses as well heavily on earthly gratification. Not that that's a bad thing, but it seems to me the LHP focuses on, and provides paths to, that end much more than many other 'systems'.
Now I'm not a walker of the LHP, so i can't speak from experience here, but to me it was always the path of the 'Self' instead a path of the 'Whole'. But that how's it looks to me from the outside.
Peace.

P.S, I'm really glad this section was created, it rounds out the forums nicely. And very interesting topic here. Maybe one could also consider, 'What the LHP isn't?"

Seeing as how I try to be MHP as possible, I looked at things from a relativist view, from there I saw this:

On one hand, there is the sense of "Other" and the sense of "self." Outward and inward, yin and yang. From there, two directions can be altered: Outwards and Inwards.

RHP magick is typically known, so I have heard and studied, as "white magick," or pretty much, Clerical magick, done by prayer, wish, belief, and a sense of "order" that "this is the way things are." This is typically done, so I have seen and experienced, with the world in mind, and with a sense of ambiguity and ambivalence to all magicks. The sort of, "one big theory" of magick which allows one to expand really really far. The higher "up/out" you go, the farther you see. I think of how a gas or cloud would expand the higher it goes. it's "all around us," sorta like the backdrop of a stage.

LHP magick, on the other hand, I believe it to be highly technical. This is passion/force magick, done typically by one's own means. Whether this kinesis is done by hand, by force, or whatnot, it is an inward journey of expanse which manifests as an implosion of energy, concentrated, and then released in the form of a working. LHP magicks, as I have seen, typically deal with a wild growth of some sort. Regenerations gone bad can turn to cancers if not careful. Curses to deal with people may turn on you. Even worse, one may be too technical, that they are lost in an inward journey, forever narrowing their possibility of existence to only one refined identity more discriminative and unique than the rest.

Whereas RHP is the holster, LHP is the laserscope, that we are the gun, choosing where to point.
Whereas RHP is a structure, LHP is the fire, that we are the blacksmiths who use our art.
Whereas RHP is an outward emination of light to all directions, LHP is the pure pull of the gravity of a black hole, going to a singular point.
RHP is the wisdom, LHP is the slide-rule...
RHP is the suspension, LHP is the engine...
Chaos within order within chaos within.....ad infinitum.
Etc, etc.

Motion resumes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blablabla.gif)

Before I begin, I must state that the below are my personal beleifs of my own path, which is a "version", if you will, of the LHP, and is not to be taken as the sole definition what the LHP is, but only an example.

The left hand path is oft misunderstood by many, mostly due to the dark gloom religion has gilded it with. The LHP has been nullified as malevolent and imprudent to the soul's growth, merely due to the fear of any practitioner attending to find the secrets inherent.

In the LHP, we are taught that the Universe is not black and white, but very grey matter, that there is not right or wrong, that we are the masters not the gods; albeit we respect them, but we do not worship them, for we need not reverate ones that we can live without, times have changed, it's the aeon of Deitrus - Lucifer Rising, man has become as God (on earth).

Many people confuse the concept of being a "God", I disagree with what Satanists call the concept of "becoming as God", for this is oft a shallow concept which does not help the spirit truly grow. To feel and think as a God would mean to cease growth, but to act and feel as a "no one" means to grow, for a God has no space to grow but a child who knows nothing has the universe to learn. Satanism is not exactly like other LHP belief systems - such as mine.

My Beliefs:

My beliefs are oft scoffed at by the big 666, but I don't believe that seeking godhood is a very good process of growth; However, I do believe that nullifying the fear factor is. For fear is what keeps us from reaching out to the darkness and finding the hidden gold, that all else have been deprived of.

What is a "God" to me?

A God, to me, is a being who has passed a process of incarnation which he/she is not to return to, and "wills" votively, to pass on, or diligently teach his lower "children", if you will. A God, to me, cannot possibly be selfish, for a God in Greek terms means "aider to mankind", Gods are for the benevolence of their species or "children". You "can't" be a god in this world, that is the utmost rediculous claim ever!, a God makes changes, a God seeks to change his "breed", his kind, for the better, a God cannot possibly be selfish, for that is not power. A God also cannot strive for power and power alone, for power isn't the fulfillment of the self, nor survival after a while, but the guidance of the others, and the overall change and creation of a new aeon, dependance in a sense.

My religious beleifs?

My personal beliefs suggest that we are all capable of godhood in the future, after death, but not in this world, for it would definately be futile. I believe that the primeval gods were our ancestors, and we are derived from one or the other, thus we feel a closeness to one or the other - either a patron or matron, or both; that we are of their "essence". For instance, in a throng of 40 people, 2 may be descendants of a God, who his/herself is a descendant of Tiamat (created by Tiamat), thus, Tiamat would be the true primeval essence of the species, whilst another 2 of the throng would be descendants of... o lets say Enki, and so forth. However, I do believe that all gods and souls, spirits, energies coalesce and make one being - the Creator, we are the creator.

My beleifs about the "Creator"?

The Creator, as stated above, is the coalescence of all beings in one, we are to the creator as blood as blood is to us - as above so bellow. I also believe that the Cosmos has a soul of its own, and that Light and Dark are two corresponding aspects of the creator, and one cannot survive without the other, just as love cannot survive with out hate - all aspects are essential for the ultimate cultivation and growth of man, thus God itself. God is not male or female, but both, God is not Dark or Light, but both, God is not good or evil, for good and evil are creations of man, the Creator is all and every, and the Creator is in constant vie with itself, for only in constant vie does the Creator, thus we, grow. Peace does not induce growth, vie and fraying do, argument does, battles do, in all essence, dark and light as well as hate and love and all other yin-yang are why we are here, and why we are not as primal as we were.

The moment we begun to fight, we begin to learn, the moment of war is the time of true growth, Nirvana is an ignorant dream, here's my definition of Nirvana from another post.

My beliefs of the afterlife and Nirvana?

Well I believe that we are the only ones who can bring our own happiness; be it out of love for others, out of self love, or whatever. I believe that we are who we choose to become, and when we progress and learn of ourselves, we learn how to please ourselves accordingly, thus "heaven" to us is a very personal route.

I do not believe in nirvana at all. Infact I believe it to be impossible and against the laws of existance. What would life mean if there has to be an ending? Nirvana, primarily as stated in the Christian Bible and in the Islam Quran to me is more like a hell, for to me, happiness is to achieve that which I strive for, and to progress, and to gain knowledge of myself and my surroundings, endlessly.

Nirvana (heaven in the biblical sense) to me would be hell, as all the reasons why I would want to enjoy life would be lost; it would quickly become trite to me.

I want to face challenges, I want to pursue goals and try my best to achieve them, I want to fail so that I can try again...

infact If I had a choice to be perfect I'd fervently deny it!

Not knowing causes us to want to know, and that is what makes us human, that desirous to know is what makes us conscious, being conscious to me is unique, to me that's "divine", and to have to submit to a filthy nirvana-type heaven would be depriving me of my own godliness I so cherish.


My beleifs on Reincarnation?

I believe we are here to learn and progress from one plane to the next, and we begin as trees, then pass on to animals, than to more dominant species of animals, and, finally humans, which grow from incarnate to incarnate.

This led me to my beliefs of the werekin.

Werekin?

As all of you should know, the werekin are humans with two spiritual bodies: one of a human, and another of an animal, which is usually the bear or wolf, for they are most sacred and closest to man. Why these werekin are so close to their animals, I believe, is because they are new as human incarnates, and need their spiritual animals to aid them on their path to becoming human; and their spiritual animals are on their ways to becoming humans, so it works hand in hand.

Shapeshifting is very real, and can be learned and achieved by all, even those who are not in the incarnate as werekin, and have passed this stage.


My beliefs on the Cosmos?

To elucidate further on my Dark/Light beleifs, I suggest we take the cosmos into account here, the Causal, which is defined by Order, and the Acausal, which is defined by disorder.

Doing much research on the two, I realized how essential they are to our existance, and how well they define the primal charasteristics of light and dark. They cannot clash, for they are completely of different energies. They have their denizons as well, and their Gods, both sides, which are in constant fray. Now, we, are composed of both Acausal and Causal matter, mostly Causal though, as we live in a Causal universe, with cause and effect, past and future, order, light, etc. but there are those of us who are drawn to the "Darkness", and are of Acausalic energy as our dominant. We are the creation of the Gods of the Acausal, and we are sent here for our personal growths just as reincarnation is essential for spiritual growth for all.

We live in a Causal dimension and world, and he is "masculine", more materialistic, and associated with order, associated with the masculine traits of our Creator, his lighter half. Most denizons of this world are also Causal, and light, spiritually, for they are of the Causal gods, associated with order and have found themselves oft well nestled in this world with the rest, for they are the majority. Those of the Acausal, like me, and few others, are of more feminine energy, we are also darker, by preeminent definition, thus we are also the minority here. I can go into this more later, as it relies heavily on my philosophy, and won't help cultivate this thread on the LHP.

I've created a chart on Word on our heirarchies; my beliefs.

I couldn't get it to come up, but it should be attached as a Pdf.

*I hope mods don't mind, I made tables and added colours to the chart, which was a tedious task, I couldn't get it to appear like that.


About the PDF: Just for less confusion, I want to state that the numbers only signify which gods/godesses or aspects the families are, just as done in animism with animal kin.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Jan 26 2007, 03:26 AM

I belive that we may define our existence in anyway we wish. I do not feel that a particular path is needed. We may grow as far inward and as far outward as we feel we need to. I feel that there is a certain amount of inward growing before you can manifest into the outward. Develope yourself as needed on your way to where ever it is that we wish to go.

This is a very fine post and the LHP may be summed up perfectly

- as above so bellow...

Quite so. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)

Why live in squalor as a prerequisite to attaining high spiritual growth? There's nothing wrong with achieving material success as long as one doesn't lose sight of the whole picture. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/face08.gif) Not!

This post has been edited by Sojrn: Mar 4 2007, 01:44 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.

I simply view the LHP in contrast to the RHP as any belief system that is contrary to the mainstream, both in practice and philosophy. RHP examples that come to my mind are like Wicca, Hermetics, and the Qabbalah. These paths all offer a solid way of practice that almost everybody involved in the occult have heard of. In contrary to these mainstream ideas I think Satanism and chaos magick, even voodoo, are examples of paths that are sorta polar opposites to the norm. Used to try to judge between the two based on weather or not they were paths of darkness or light. A path of darkness would be one of isolation and self destruction to attain true self discovery were as a path of light would be one of accomplishment and attainment. To make the current self greater. But I've come to realize that any path can be one darkness or light it all depends on the perspective of the practitioner.

All roads lead to Rome.

The Path is the same for everyone, perspective is all that changes.

All roads lead to Rome.

The Path is the same for everyone, perspective is all that changes.

I disagree, RHP leads towards unity with the divine, LHP leads to total freedom and individual godhood.

Noxifer,
Ho Drakon Ho Megas!

If you are united with your Godhood, are you not also united with the divine?

For, as Ezekiel looked upon the face of God,
He stood back in Awe
For God was He and He was God

There is unity for there is no difference.

The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!

This post has been edited by Uni_Verse: Oct 5 2007, 11:10 AM

If you are united with your Godhood, are you not also united with the divine?

For, as Ezekiel looked upon the face of God,
He stood back in Awe
For God was He and He was God

There is unity for there is no difference.

The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!

The goal of the LHP is to become an individual creation, completely seperate from the White Light concept of the "divine". There might be some similiarities, true, but all in all they lead in two opposite directions.

"Lucifer set his throne not on the same throne as God, but on a throne beyond."

An individual creation...
Where you are the Universe
And the Universe is you

Sounds the same to me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Of course...
All your knowledge of
Individual
Creation
Are based on what you have learned in this one...

So will it really be separate?

This post has been edited by Uni_Verse: Oct 6 2007, 05:42 AM

I would like to propose that you take something on for a tad.

“The Left Hand Path, is the acceptance and indulgence of the darkness within and without.”

That is the end of my proposal…I am now getting up on my soap box, but would like you to not equate one with the other.

The left hand path for me is one of the healthiest temporary concepts I know of. I go back to it time and time again. Do I stay on it? I can’t; there is no reason I can phantom for my temperament to study the path of another too long.

The Left hand path is where I go when I need to channel rage, anger, and any of the like occupying thoughts. What I do not get at this point is using it as a rebellious end around. I have seen too many wonderfully creative mages go down this road, reach their point of the dark night with it.

(For those that don’t know, the dark night of the soul is a religious reference to a poem and explanation by Saint John of the Cross. While described by a catholic mystic, it is accepted as a very good account regardless of faith type. )

When they reach their Dark Night…they end up becoming fundie Christians with little or no mythical tradition what so ever in their life. It is sad to see. Sadder still, I miss their insight into whatever I am doing now. I see them at get togethers, we call each other from time to time…but the spark in their eyes only comes back from time to time. At first they abandon you completely for their new “life”. Severing all ties, then about a year or so later, they return to invite you into their world (try to convert you, there are some very good looking intelligent women that they tempt you with, your job is to temp them to your ends). After 2~5 years you are friends (or former friends who value past bonds) again.

In one case, someone who I still consider a good friend, there is always the prodding as to what I am doing when it is just the two of us. I see the temptation, but I don’t indulge him, he would have to leave his “new” life, and that would start the process all over again.


I mention this as a cautionary tale, don’t choose a path because of rebellion, it is a waste of valuable energy. Your tribe (family, community, friends and so on from childhood), has a gravitational pull on you, it is more efficient to spiral away towards independence, then it is to take run in the opposite direction. You are also less likely to have a disastrous landing.

I’ve also seen some thrown out of the tribe because differences in thoughts. Because they act not of the norm, do not accept the concepts of the tribe. Gays and Lesbians typically have this experience, but it could be anything. Rebelling there is a total waste of time, be yourself, and move on. The sad thing is Love and Hate are flip sides of the same coin, to invest the energy in hate you need to have loved them or at least admired them and thought you could love them. Indifference is much healthier, they truly should not matter to you. (I follow the concept of fear being the true opposite of love, not hate)

On the flip side, after the dark night, should you pull through the other side, offers a much greater understanding of things, a very clear perspective compared to before.

The Left Hand Path is a great way to get to know your self, get the past behind you, but to do that you need to let go of it, or you are dragging it along. If portions of the past come along for the ride, great…but do not drag them along.

Ultimately, walking down a path that previously had you in dread, worry, anger, temptation, or guilt and it not really giving you a second thought, for it no longer has any hold on you, is what the LHP is about.

It is a path of learning to conquer things that held you. Initially by direct conflict, later by not so direct (when we get wise and give up honor as necessary, and we go simply for results). The taboo or the tingling in their spine when they think of it attracts most people on it. That wares off, or you fumble into some wonderful pathology and become a pitiful distorted reflection of what you where and not even a shadow of what you could become.

Like all quality paths, it is dangerous, difficult, fun and rewarding. Just remember it is a path, not a destination, and you can get off it, preferably at a crossroads, but wandering on no path has its rewards too.

Anyway, good travels

I think LHP means like, independant of the church. I mean you got God, and these fake religions that invented him so they could control magic. They say "left-handed people are Evil" so they can demonize someone, then they say, "Any magic that doesn't obey us is Evil" and they call that the left-hand path, to make it sound more evil. So people who follow the left hand path are those who deal in magic that isn't church sanctioned. At least that's the historical definition.

This is a question I've have turning over in my own head recently. I knew about another particular school of thought a few years ago that made two distinctions, STO (Service to Others) and STS (Service to Self) although it was observed at the time that distinctions between the two could get very murky and difficult.

A scenario I thought of to illustrate this...someone goes into a service station, holds the attendant at gunpoint, and demands all of his money. From the point of view of the attendant, yes, the person holding up the place is completely LHP/STS, morally speaking...the attendant isn't getting anything positive out of it at all. If the only purpose of the robber is in getting money for drugs, then it could be superficially argued that it is therefore *completely* LHP/STS morally...cut and dried.

However, let's look at another possible scenario for a moment...rather than being a drug addict, let's say that the person holding up the service station is semi-homeless, and has a girlfriend/wife and a baby in a hotel room somewhere. He's desperate for money because the baby needs feeding every four hours, and he actually had to get some friends to help with a birth in the hotel room because it happened very suddenly and there wasn't time to get his girlfriend to a maternity ward. (It does happen) Hence, she is very weak and may even die if he isn't able to continue to feed her. He can't get a job because he barely has a ninth grade education, and couldn't at the moment even if he was educated, because he needs to be at home for the time being to look after his girlfriend and the child.

This is a very different scenario. It might still appear to be STS/LHP morally from the perspective of the attendant, because he's still definitely not winning here, but from the perspective of the robber, it could arguably be considered STO from the point of view that he is willing to put his own legal wellbeing (and possibly his life, if the attendant is armed) at risk in order to preserve the wellbeing of other people he loves.

Also, even if we go with the first scenario and say that the robber is merely a drug addict in need of money to pay for a fix, one of the consequences of that act will still be STO (if only inadvertently) in that the dealer will benefit from the money in exchange for the drugs that the robber receives. My point here is that we exist within such a deeply entrenched web of interdependency that no matter how purely STS/LHP someone tries to be, it's inevitable that at some point in their lives, in order to maintain their own existence, they will at least inadvertently end up performing some act that benefits somebody else, even if that wasn't their intent.

Another example from my own experience...one that took place on an ongoing basis within the game World of Warcraft. My character in that game was a member of the Horde, which is generally considered to be the "evil," faction within the game. The Alliance, traditionally considered the "good" faction, tended to use pre-existing expectations about their morality as an excuse to attack us in an extremely aggressive and cowardly manner. The Horde were considered hell-spawned monsters, and Alliance players thus felt that in game terms, they had license to slaughter us on that basis. Yet also, culturally speaking, the Horde's ethnic groups were those which were modelled on shamanic, indigenous societies...the environment and the elements were held in high regard, as being the very things which kept said societies alive. Although the Horde's ethnic groups generally admittedly *were* highly warlike and aggressive, they were also a lot more principled than was generally believed. Geurilla tactics and cowardice in particular were not engaged in, unlike with the Alliance. If an Orc had a problem with you, you'd know about it very openly.

A third example I could offer here is Kali herself. Look at an image of her. She usually has jet black or blue skin. She has four arms, the hands of which are covered in blood. She wears a garland of human heads, and a belt of human arms...death related imagery of the most grotesque kind is everywhere you look. Yet nearly everywhere that she is worshipped, from what I have seen, she is viewed not only as a bloodthirsty monster, but also as a divine mother...one of her titles is the Treasure House of Compassion. Yes, there's darkness, chaos, terror, and an insatiable craving for blood, there...I've been accused of not seeing her dark side, and it is not true...I do see it. However, there is also love, compassion, a willingness to protect, and a desire to be emotionally intimate with her followers.

I'm not going to argue that this is the same in every case...everything I've read about Pazuzu on here in particular leads me to believe that his depiction in The Exorcist was actually dead on the money...there genuinely are entities in existence who are just plain bad, as others have said...they get off on it. Belial is apparently another example I could use there, in terms of the Goetics. However, the point is to be extremely careful when you're going to make a negative judgement about anyone, because situations where someone is purely evil in a cut and dried sense are generally actually a tiny exception, rather than the overall rule. I feel that if Kali in particular has anything to teach anyone, it's not to judge a book by its' cover. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif)

As an additional observation, I'll also say that I've found that some of the most interesting/informative people to talk to on here have been those who I've also tended to consider were the most likely to be LHP, or who would be considered such. That doesn't mean that I have an interest in being LHP myself, or at least not exclusively...but it does mean that I feel that everyone should respect them...and also that them potentially having less restraint in the persuit of their studies could also well mean that they have more experience for the rest of us to draw from...so again, they end up inadvertently benefiting the whole possibly entirely without meaning to. ;-)

This post has been edited by Petrus: Nov 30 2007, 08:54 AM

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.

This is a really good explanation for me. I like this one the best.

I actually found wikipedia to be kinda insightful on this topic. (who'd have thunk it?)

here's an excerpt of the key bit:

Right-Hand Path belief systems generally share the following properties:

* Belief in a higher power, such as a deity.
* Obedience to the will of a higher power.
* The belief that there is an absolute definition of good and evil that applies to everyone.
* Esoteric belief in a supernatural mechanism like Karma, divine retribution, or the Threefold Law, which entails the assessment of moral decisions made in one's lifetime.
* Eschatological beliefs, resulting to salvation for some and to damnation for others.

Left-Hand Path belief systems generally share the following properties:

* The conviction that individuals can become (or already are) akin to gods.
* The conviction that there is no such thing as a selfless act. Fulfilling one's desire is acknowledged to be selfish, at the least reaping an individual sense of satisfaction. Altruism is considered self-deception, created and fostered by conventional religions.
* A less rigid definition of the self; a purported realization that there are sometimes collective identities which can also, just as validly, have the label "self" applied to them.
* An exoteric interpretation of concepts like karma, divine retribution, or the Threefold Law, resulting in flexible rather than rigid codes of ethics.
* The conviction that the individual is preeminent, and that all decisions should be made with the goal of cultivating the self (though not necessarily the ego).
* The conviction that each individual is responsible for his or her own happiness, and that no external force will provide salvation or reward actions which do not advance one's own happiness in this life.
* The conviction that the forces of the universe can be harnessed to one's personal will by magical means, and that power gained and wielded in such a manner is an aid to enlightenment, to self-satisfaction, and to self-deification.
* A Platonic view of deities as "first-forms." If deity is perceived as having consciousness, then all relationships with the deity are in the form of a partnership, or an alliance which does not require subservience. Some practitioners of Left-Hand Path belief systems summarize this concept with the statement that "prideful deities like
prideful partners."

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Hand_Path_and_Right-Hand_Path

I'm definitely much more LHP myself.

Altruism is self-deception, eh?

I hate Ayn Rand so much.

actually I'd take that as kinda a bad sign. that you hate her so much I mean.
it strongly suggests that she's striking a nerve. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean she's correct, but it does suggest that she's pressing against something in your psyche you've repressed.
mind you the key word is "suggests", not "proves"

I think she was quite smart, and very thought provoking. I can appreciate her contribution to philosophical discourse. I do disagree with her though. But I must admit she does describe a great many human beings quite accurately. I think that perhaps everyone at stage 4 and under on Kohlberg's moral development scale might be summed up by Rand all too well. But of course the scale goes to 6, not just 4. Personally I would argue that there is a 7th stage, not outlined by Kohlberg, but that's a whole different topic.

There is another issue though, and that is that ultimately everything you think and do is a facet of your Will. And it is very much a part of my occult path to empower the Will, and to make every effort to consciously co-join with one's "true will". In this perspective, it could be said that everything which you do, is what you wish to do, and you could, as a matter of perspective, choose to view that as 'selfish' in an Ayn Rand sort of way. I think this is an oversimplified viewpoint though. sort of a "glass half empty" thing.

The association between Rand's philosophy and the LHP is mainly through Anton LaVey, who borrowed *heavily* from both Rand and Nietzsche. Actually I don't particularly like any of LaVey's writing which *isn't* plagerized from one of those two. The copied bits are the only parts of his writing which are really thought provoking & interesting. I do disagree with the Rand based portions, but they're well thought out cogent ideas. And well, Nietzsche I'm quite fond of. Actually that sums up why I don't consider myself a satanist. satanism is Rand+Nietzsche+inverted christianity, whereas I am more Nietzsche+Jung+tao+tantra. we have enough Nietzsche in common to enjoy each others' company though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anyway, there are more than one flavor of LHP. the list outlines common ideas within the LHP, I would venture to say that not very many left hand paths actually strictly adhere to every single listed item.

Of course, "left hand path" is originally a tantrik term ("vamachara"), and has frankly very little to do with the modern western concept of the term 'left hand path'.

This post has been edited by Kath: Nov 25 2009, 02:43 AM

I see a lot of really solid answers here.

In my opinion, the terms "left hand path" and "right hand path" are thrown around in a fairly haphazard manner in Western occultism. These terms are rooted in ancient Indian spiritual practice and are perhaps best defined as opposing methods of achieving enlightenment / self-actualization / exaltation. RHP simply represented achieving it through "pure" means, whereas LHP indicated a pursuit of the same via taboos - sex, drugs, eating meat (i.e. in a vegetarian culture), etc.

Within the Western esoteric paradigm, I've heard the OTO variously described as both LHP *and* RHP. And while it seems that LHP organizations are prone to atheism, Crowley's own assertions about "black brothers" suggest disdain for theurgy undertaken without a holy purpose, and so further semantic issues arise. What IS "holy", for example? Does the term reference a divine being external to you, or is it merely indicative of a spiritual context, whether personal *or* impersonal, or... ?

The trouble with polarizing categorization in spiritual paths that focus on the development of the self is that the definition of those categories is, by virtue of context, subjective. It may be best to acknowledge the useful points of both "extremes", but to ignore the labels.

This post has been edited by th0th: Mar 28 2010, 02:52 AM

Nietzsche+Jung+tao+tantra

I would say the same of myself, save that I don't know jack squat about tantra. It'd be nice to learn, but I don't have a tantra partner. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

On that same note, Jung did say, "I'd rather be whole than be good." That sums up my sentiments, after reading your post.

What IS "holy", for example? Does the term reference a divine being external to you, or is it merely indicative of a spiritual context, whether personal *or* impersonal, or... ?

Holy means "Sacred" and Unholy means "Profaned," in my experience.

Look at these observations: The "Holy Whores" of Babylon and Egypt represented the idea that beauty and sexuality were sacred. They were things to be exalted. You can't exactly equate them with the streetwalkers of today, but they did meander about, offering their services to the people, and they were deeply respected. They were like mini-Lady-Gaga's or some derivation, for sake of visualization of our modern mind. Again, NOTHING close to the whores of today. The "Unholy" version would be the "Whores" of today, and in general, the depiction of women in the media. Profaned. Not Sacred. Something to be used and thrown away. This is why western culture gets a lot of flak in general (speaking in retrospect, before Abrahamic religions touched either east or west, and looking at our current modern "flavor" derived from it) is because sexuality isn't sacred, it's seen as dirty! Promiscuity and indulgence is looked down upon, because no one knows how to use it for empowerment of themselves or others (I speak in haste, some may be exceptions to this rule). Christian roots in our culture dig deep into RHP. Sex is Unholy here. Sex is not sacred here. They say it is, but they know not what they say, nor what they do.

In Japan, however, prostitution is not really looked down upon at all. They honored geisha as conversationalists, entertainers, and people who actually gave two shits about the art of "pleasurable company," yes, in sexual ways, but in more ways than that as well! Lo and behold, their civilization was able to flourish without major RHP influence until much much later (when an RHP civilization out-tech'd their own!). In fact, they did strive to push it out for a time!! Look further and... WHOA!! Nature based Shinto Religion!! Whaddaya know...? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Coincidence? I think not.

Another example is alcohol. I, personally, took on the attitude that it is "Holy" and "Sacred." Alcohol gives courage. It breaks down the walls of inhibitions, and releases us from the fear of ourselves, therefore allowing us to be natural. The "Unholy" is it's abuse as a common drug. Alcohol is Holy. Alcoholism is Unholy.

Alchemists from long ago used alcohol for medicines. I wouldn't be surprised if many thought it to be a drink of fertility, because it makes people playful!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif)

Look at Tobacco. Smoked by American Native tribes to bring them to meditative states where they could ground themselves before a council. Hence, "peace pipe!!" This is "Holy." The "Unholy" is how it is mass produced and packaged by companies who bet on it's addictive properties to be used as a cash cow. Tobacco is Holy. Cigarettes are Unholy.

Music is Holy. It was used to bring people into a trance, to pull out emotions to help them feel, to set mood... the list goes on. Unholy is slapping together a formula and pushing it onto the market for sake of profit, not caring about the sound. It is a dishonor to what music is. An example of this would be Jonas Brothers or Hannah Montana. The music is not what is emphasized, it's the image! The illusion!!

As Ambassador Kosh said from Babylon 5, "A stroke of the brush does not guarantee art from the bristles."

So here I addressed it, in the context of Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n'Roll (maybe not the last part, but music). Ladies and Gents, these are the finer things in life! They are fine because they are Holy, but only if we treat them as such!!

Use them? Sure! Enjoy them? Sure! But never forget why they exist in our life, and how they benefit us. To honor something for the good it brings... That is "Holy."

Holy means "Sacred" and Unholy means "Profaned," in my experience.

Well, of course that's valid (IMG:style_emoticons/default/doh.gif) but one person's "sacred" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/innocent.gif) can be another's "profane" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evil2.gif) , so the concepts are actually fairly arbitrary when we use them as extremes. I was getting at the notion that "holiness" is contextual, and questioning whether that context referred to something outside of, or something within, oneself.

So here I addressed it, in the context of Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n'Roll (maybe not the last part, but music). Ladies and Gents, these are the finer things in life! They are fine because they are Holy, but only if we treat them as such!!

Use them? Sure! Enjoy them? Sure! But never forget why they exist in our life, and how they benefit us. To honor something for the good it brings... That is "Holy."

Couldn't have said it better myself!

lhp vs rhp - anti-clockwise versus clockwise - widdershins vs deosil - negative association versus positive association - dissolving versus growing - left versus right - producing versus receiving - increase versus decrease - sowing versus harvest - toilet spin above the equator versus toilet spin below the equator lol

just more innane duality from a dualistic world - to me,they are both just magick - to increase is to grow, but so is to remove the obstruction to growth - it may be medieval, since now we know that it is all a matter of perspective, and that sunwise is only rhp because the earth is actually rotating lhp - the sun doesn't actually rise up, the horizon moves down

I would say the same of myself, save that I don't know jack squat about tantra. It'd be nice to learn, but I don't have a tantra partner. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

well, you don't need a partner per say... well, it depends on what facet of tantra you're focusing on I guess. What I mean to say though, is that it is first and foremost an enlightenment path, not a sexual art. It is a veda, like yoga. And in india, you will not find many who view yoga and tantra as being opposed to each other, except in the finer details of their methods. They tend to regard each other as going towards the same ultimate goal by different roads.

just more innane duality from a dualistic world -

*nod* the western "LHP" is very seeped in dualism, much like the western "RHP". I agree that it's unfortunate, and distorts things greatly.

actually I'd take that as kinda a bad sign. that you hate her so much I mean.
it strongly suggests that she's striking a nerve. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean she's correct, but it does suggest that she's pressing against something in your psyche you've repressed.
mind you the key word is "suggests", not "proves"

Very perceptive, and I'd say you were right usually; the Christian philosophers I hated back in high school I hated only because I couldn't satisfactorily disprove their assertions to myself. But I liked Rand, at first; I thought she had some interesting ideas, and her books weren't terrible. I started hating her after being surrounded by entirely too many of her cult... excuse me, her fans. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif) They can be... resistant to logic, lamely enough.

I think Rand appeals to a certain emotional mindset which some people have. So they sort of follow her ideas with a religious sort of belief in them.
More often though, i find people who, based on their emotional mindset or religious beliefs, just despise Rand and everything she said.

I think both sorts of people are kinda missing the point though, and failing to really engage what she said at face value as a philosopher. I admire the thought she put into her ideas, and the social scorn she was willing to endure. I like that she said what she said, it needed saying. I think her writings are a contribution to philosophy as a whole. But I don't technically agree with her all that much.

The problem I have with the phrases "Left Hand Path" and "Right Hand Path" is that the left/right analogy suggests they must be diametric philosophies and practices.

Each side wages a war to be the one that establishes the meta-frame contextualizing both sides - such that the one whose frame is adopted as the foundation wins the war for being perceived as the most attractive, rational, and practical, in contrast with the other which seems repulsive, demented, and quixotic.

I find that I really like aspects of both, yet cannot completely side with either.
Yet, the middle position I'm in does not pretend to be beyond either, because it incorporates what for me are the best of both.

Of course, that always gets flak from the flamboyant fanbois who ridicule the middle because we won't exclusively support their side.
And I ignore their tantrums because I have learned that what works best for me is the ultimate bottom line.

If someone were to ask me "Are you Left Hand Path / Right Hand Path?" my answer these days would be one word: Median.