[LHP only] What is left hand path?

[ThirtyThree]

Thanks 1137 this makes sense to me. Of course, I use the word heterodox as I have come to prefer it over the term "Left Hand Path". Heterodox = not conforming to traditional and mainstream ideas and beliefs of profane society.

Many are hetrodox. What is up for question is what mainstream ideology and beliefs one is hetrodox to. Also, majority ideology and beliefs change with the times. I question the value of the term hetrodox for this reason. While I am less inclined to devalue the term left hand path as completely, since it could be modified to actually define a group of ideologies. For example, to worship a supernal that the majority of people would view as evil.

 

[Adramelek]

Many are hetrodox. What is up for question is what mainstream ideology and beliefs one is hetrodox to. Also, majority ideology and beliefs change with the times. I question the value of the term hetrodox for this reason. While I am less inclined to devalue the term left hand path as completely, since it could be modified to actually define a group of ideologies. For example, to worship a supernal that the majority of people would view as evil.

If you want to worship a "supernal", as you call it, that the majority of mundane society view as "evil", that is up to you. I, even though may follow the ideals and teachings of a certain god-form named Set, do reserve the right to disagree with that god-head in accordance with my own understanding. Though very rare, it does and can happen. And, no it does not invoke the wrath of said god, who himself is open minded to the thoughts and ideas of his human colleagues and collaborators. Again, Set seeks equals, not blind servants.

 

[ThirtyThree]

If you want to worship a "supernal", as you call it, that the majority of mundane society view as "evil", that is up to you. I, even though may follow the ideals and teachings of a certain god-form such as Set, do reserve the right to disagree with that god-head in accordance with my own understanding. Though very rare, it does and can happen. And, no it does not invoke the wrath of said god, who himself is open minded to the thoughts and ideas of his humanly peers and collaborators. Again, Set seeks equals, not blind servants.

Not all supernals view humanity the same way. They have as varied opinions as humans do about humans. Also, each supernal has their own expectations of those who follow or worship them. Some do not recognize worship, also. As for disagreeing, I can disagree with my Lord also and as much as I desire. Acting on that disagreement might not be beneficial though. It depends. My Lord requires obedience. Yours might not. Others might not. Again, supernals all have their personalities, expectations, rules and so on. Some are certainly viewed as evil by the majority of people.

 

[1137]

Not all supernals view humanity the same way. They have as varied opinions as humans do about humans. Also, each supernal has their own expectations of those who follow or worship them. Some do not recognize worship, also. As for disagreeing, I can disagree with my Lord also and as much as I desire. Acting on that disagreement might not be beneficial though. It depends. My Lord requires obedience. Yours might not. Others might not. Again, supernals all have their personalities, expectations, rules and so on. Some are certainly viewed as evil by the majority of people.

I see it this way to. While I choose to walk hand and hand with Set, there definitely seem to be many options to choose from.

 

[ThirtyThree]

I see it this way to. While I choose to walk hand and hand with Set, there definitely seem to be many options to choose from.

I do not believe for one second that my Lord would EVER walk with me hand in hand. Some would though, as you specified.

 

[1137]

I do not believe for one second that my Lord would EVER walk with me hand in hand. Some would though, as you specified.

Indeed, it seems to me there as many egomanical slave gods as growth oriented and even apathetic gods.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Indeed, it seems to me there as many egomanical slave gods as growth oriented and even apathetic gods.

Absolutely, there are many. Still, I deeply dislike calling them gods. Hence supernals.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Like I said, you can be all edgy and shy away from your responsibilities if it helps you feel spooky, but I'll enjoy having money to do the things I want, food, a roof over my head, clean water...

OK, only none of that has anything to do with anything. Or, alternatively, 'responsibility' doesn't mean what you think it does.

I have plenty of money, a nice place, all the clean water I can drink(beer too!), and 'spooky' is about the last word I'd use to describe myself. I do find it interesting that your go to response to everything is 'you're trying to be edgy and spooky!' though. I would say that says far more about you than it does about others. Wouldn't you agree?

Deflection, it's what's for dinner.

I suppose you won't be addressing anything I have said directly. I probably wouldn't in your tenuous position either.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Perhaps someone can help educate me here. I would really like to understand, what are the differences between Western and Eastern Left Hand Path traditions?

There is none. Or rather, the former is an incoherent misapprehension of the latter that dates back to the writings of one 'Helena Blavatsky' in the late 1800s. The information isn't exactly hidden(although most "lhp" occultnics would prefer it were)

Here is a short explanation of the origins of the so called 'western lhp'

https://autodiabolic.wordpress.com/a-little-to-the-left/

 

[1137]

OK, only none of that has anything to do with anything. Or, alternatively, 'responsibility' doesn't mean what you think it does.

I have plenty of money, a nice place, all the clean water I can drink(beer too!), and 'spooky' is about the last word I'd use to describe myself. I do find it interesting that your go to response to everything is 'you're trying to be edgy and spooky!' though. I would say that says far more about you than it does about others. Wouldn't you agree?

Deflection, it's what's for dinner.

I suppose you won't be addressing anything I have said directly. I probably wouldn't in your tenuous position either.

You're the one who hasn't directly addressed any of my arguments.

 

[crossfire]

There is none. Or rather, the former is an incoherent misapprehension of the latter that dates back to the writings of one 'Helena Blavatsky' in the late 1800s. The information isn't exactly hidden(although most "lhp" occultnics would prefer it were)

Here is a short explanation of the origins of the so called 'western lhp'

https://autodiabolic.wordpress.com/a-little-to-the-left/

Snippet from your article:

What we are left with are gaggles of so called ‘Satanists’ espousing a philosophy that is far, far from anything resembling left hand path practice, yet claiming, often quite loudly, that since they are in fact their own gods nobody has the right to tell them what the term actually means! Some would even go so far as to describe themselves as egalitarian(the very essence of submission to a collective) while still claiming to be walking the left hand path. This is nothing less than stupidity based in a sort of willful ignorance and sense of entitlement that has become the hallmark of western society itself.​

Actually I would say that egalitarianism recognizes and honors individuals without imposing collectivist ideals, whereas elitism is collectivist in that the elite are the ones who are best at submitting to and embodying a collective ideal. Your mileage may vary.

I do agree with the article's assessment of the Theosophists role regarding this.

 

[1137]

There is none. Or rather, the former is an incoherent misapprehension of the latter that dates back to the writings of one 'Helena Blavatsky' in the late 1800s. The information isn't exactly hidden(although most "lhp" occultnics would prefer it were)

Here is a short explanation of the origins of the so called 'western lhp'

https://autodiabolic.wordpress.com/a-little-to-the-left/

.... You're your own source? And ONA to boot. So much for the whole not edgy/spooky thing!

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You're the one who hasn't directly addressed any of my arguments.

.... You're your own source? And ONA to boot. So much for the whole not edgy/spooky thing!

QED

 

[1137]

QED

*refuses to address any arguments, thinks he won.

 

[Mindmaster]

There is none. Or rather, the former is an incoherent misapprehension of the latter that dates back to the writings of one 'Helena Blavatsky' in the late 1800s. The information isn't exactly hidden(although most "lhp" occultnics would prefer it were)

Here is a short explanation of the origins of the so called 'western lhp'

https://autodiabolic.wordpress.com/a-little-to-the-left/

Just wanted to say, your sentiments on the subject rather echo my own and your article addresses the sticking points. I feel as though me and you were probably reading a lot of the same material. Especially, regarding Blavatsky -- she really just took a very polarized black and white view to the subject and glossed over the details as well as projected contemporary Christian understandings on to various research she made tainting the whole experiment she called Theosophy.

The Western concept of the LHP is sort of a fabrication and is meaningless. (Because it was conceived of by the brain-less Blavatsky) You can argue about what it is, but you will find no two people think it is the same thing hence it is something akin to an edgelord aesthetic most of the time. Now, there is a real Western LHP derived from the Eastern that is basically an expansion on the old ideas but in the wild I've rarely seen much of that being done. Heck, I think I might be the only one I know who does this personally. You are probably on that track as well just in the way you write.

Anyway, good and accurate write-up. Thanks!

 

[1137]

Just wanted to say, your sentiments on the subject rather echo my own and your article addresses the sticking points. I feel as though me and you were probably reading a lot of the same material.

That explains a hell of a lot!

 

[Mindmaster]

Actually I would say that egalitarianism recognizes and honors individuals without imposing collectivist ideals, whereas elitism is collectivist in that the elite are the ones who are best at submitting to and embodying a collective ideal. Your mileage may vary.

I do agree with the article's assessment of the Theosophists role regarding this.

Elitism is basically a caste system idea, although execution varies within the different types of government and social situations. (Same thing, many forms... go figure) It's basically establishing an authority and projecting conformity -- it's very non-LHP ultimately if the criteria were to encourage a manifestation of LHP values within society for the sake of progress, for example. In any case, in the typical LHP use you have a bunch of edgelords that assume that anyone not in their thought posse is full of beans. It's just a delusion, but hey you can't stop stupid!

Egalitarianism is sort of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We know some individuals are relatively useless or dead weight, but this idea basically says we should respect everyone or consider them of equal worth. It just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but it sounds really good on paper. Basically, to give an idea why this doesn't work -- someone who flips burgers is consider equal to someone whom does open heart surgery. That's just nonsense, anyone can do the former, but the latter is a rare skill that requires several years of rigorous training and a constant dedication to new technologies and research as well as their application.

I think most LHP-types are screwing up the last concept with what they mean with altruism most of the time. Altruism is just a non-addressed subject at least in the context of the Western or Eastern LHP, but the elitist edgelords are going to have problems with it because they see it as combative to their notion of stratification. Again, this is just an error of logic since we can be rich and elite while still being kind to the less fortunate -- if we have achieved such lofty heights then being generous has little effect on us personally other than to promote a good public image. Basically, it just comes down to whether selfishness is a valuable trait, and in most cases I'd posit that it isn't. It makes you seem petty, vile, and trivial. You cannot be elite at least in a real way (with support of the collective) without being a good master. You have to give something back for the public at large to recognize your value, and accept your place in the order of things.

 

[Mindmaster]

That explains a hell of a lot!

You seem to be having a meltdown. These are problems we can't help you with on an Internet forum. They are out of scope.

 

[1137]

You seem to be having a meltdown. These are problems we can't help you with on an Internet forum. They are out of scope.

Lol wut?

 

[crossfire]

The Western concept of the LHP is sort of a fabrication and is meaningless. (Because it was conceived of by the brain-less Blavatsky) You can argue about what it is, but you will find no two people think it is the same thing hence it is something akin to an edgelord aesthetic most of the time. Now, there is a real Western LHP derived from the Eastern that is basically an expansion on the old ideas but in the wild I've rarely seen much of that being done. Heck, I think I might be the only one I know who does this personally. You are probably on that track as well just in the way you write.

The active [god/male] conscious aspect is associated with the right, whereas the passive [goddess/female] unconscious aspect is associated with the left. (Eastern religions have the God on the Right and the Goddess on the Left.) LHP is psychology of the unconscious--purifying habits and unconscious processes into more skillful ones; developing wisdom, and making/bringing the unconscious into consciousness. It is awakening, rather than dreaming, and examining and understanding the unconscious mind instead of using it as a psychological garbage can to repress unpleasant/evil aspects.

Elitism is basically a caste system idea, although execution varies within the different types of government and social situations. (Same thing, many forms... go figure) It's basically establishing an authority and projecting conformity -- it's very non-LHP ultimately if the criteria were to encourage a manifestation of LHP values within society for the sake of progress, for example. In any case, in the typical LHP use you have a bunch of edgelords that assume that anyone not in their thought posse is full of beans. It's just a delusion, but hey you can't stop stupid!

Who needs enemies when you can be your own worst enemy?

Egalitarianism is sort of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We know some individuals are relatively useless or dead weight, but this idea basically says we should respect everyone or consider them of equal worth. It just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but it sounds really good on paper.

See above statement, and apply this principle internally. Be an egalitarian in regards to the different aspects of your psyche so you don't become your own worst enemy. It's an excellent habit to cultivate, and extending this principle to others helps to reinforce this habit internally.

Basically, to give an idea why this doesn't work -- someone who flips burgers is consider equal to someone whom does open heart surgery. That's just nonsense, anyone can do the former, but the latter is a rare skill that requires several years of rigorous training and a constant dedication to new technologies and research as well as their application.

I would posit that the rarest of skills is not to become your own worst enemy.

I think most LHP-types are screwing up the last concept with what they mean with altruism most of the time. Altruism is just a non-addressed subject at least in the context of the Western or Eastern LHP, but the elitist edgelords are going to have problems with it because they see it as combative to their notion of stratification. Again, this is just an error of logic since we can be rich and elite while still being kind to the less fortunate -- if we have achieved such lofty heights then being generous has little effect on us personally other than to promote a good public image. Basically, it just comes down to whether selfishness is a valuable trait, and in most cases I'd posit that it isn't. It makes you seem petty, vile, and trivial. You cannot be elite at least in a real way (with support of the collective) without being a good master. You have to give something back for the public at large to recognize your value, and accept your place in the order of things.

Apply this to your waking consciousness/ego for maximum benefit.