LHP vs RHP

[Cosmos-intérieur]

hello first of all my english level is close to 0.001% so i will use an automatic translator it will be easier for me to communicate like this.

There are different definitions of what is or is not the distinction between left hand path and right hand path.

I will use the one that suits me the most, which is more of a Western definition.

the way of the right hand promotes the absorption of the subject in a collective consciousness.

the way of the left hand path promotes the development of the subject until integrating the infinite but not because the subject has disappeared because it has become larger.

human ontology in both cases but where or in the right hand path the human is ireel as human and divine only when he has melted his ego.

In the left hand way the human being is divine but he is divine as ego: he is divine as he is what he is.

left hand path as an ontology that allows for realistic pluralism.
right hand path as a monistic ontology which refuses pluralism and so much towards an idealism where only the single spirit is real.

obviously left hand path corresponds better to what I consider to be the reality.
then from a practical point melting my ego does not interest me, I find that against nature.

 

[Aštra’el]

The way I would summarize it…

RHP = Spiritual system/ religion/ Weltanschauung prioritizing the will of the collective over the will of the individual.

LHP = Spiritual system/ religion/ Weltanschaung prioritizing the will of the individual over the will of the collective.

Furthermore…

RHP = embraces the collective’s morality

LHP= unshackles one’s self from the collective’s morality, either to develop your own or abandon morality entirely.

It is possible to find a balance. However, when you become genuinely committed to either extremity, only then would I describe it as “LHP” or “RHP”.

 

[Thea]

Is there really a difference …

I see one as searching for the Gods without - RHP

While the other searches for the Gods within. -LHP

…

My God is omnipresent, so for me it’s the same.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's roots go much deeper then LaVey or Aquino, all the way back to medieval India circa 3rd-8th centuries.

Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism are the first to coin the terms LHP and rhp. Afaik.

"In more recent definitions, which base themselves on the terms' origins in Indian Tantra, the Right-Hand Path (RHP, or Dakshinachara), is seen as a definition for those magical groups that follow specific ethical codes and adopt social convention, while the Left-Hand Path (LHP, or Vamamarga) adopts the opposite attitude, espousing the breaking of taboo and the abandoning of set morality."

Original dichotomy seems a little different than later western use of the terms.

 

[The Hammer]

Original dichotomy seems a little different than later western use of the terms.

Can you explain what you see as the difference? I'm curious.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Left hand path and self-Deification
in a more western sense is also present in dualistic siddhanta Shaivism.
I quote from an article: The Shaiva Siddhânta, or Doctrine of Shiva is a dualistic Shaiva tradition insofar as it considers that Shiva is eternally separated from the souls of creatures. When a human attains deliverance, he does not become Shiva, but he becomes equal to Shiva, omniscient and omnipotent like him.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Can you explain what you see as the difference? I'm curious.

I don't know much. From what I have read relationships between different Indian schools are very complex. They seem to have influenced each other. It's not black and white... If I understand correctly Indian Vamachara and Dakshinachara both aim to attain liberation and include worship of deity. Western lhp is often expressed as own ego deification.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

Is there really a difference in which path one takes to achieve their spiritual goals? Is one path more valid then the other.

Why is one looked at as being benign, while the other is looked at as dangerous?

------

I see one as searching for the Gods without - RHP

While the other searches for the Gods within. -LHP

(Yes this is a severe simplification and generalization)

Edit: Left-hand path and right-hand path - Wikipedia

P.S. as an aside, if there are two paths, and multiple paths within each overarching path... Then multiplicity is a fundamental aspect of reality.

 

[Cosmos-intérieur]

after, does the self-ification make a non-dualistic approach impossible?
yes if we have an exclusive non-dualistic approach (where only the being is real as such) but no if we have a more inclusive non-dualistic approach (where the individual is also real as God in the god).
this is the case of Kashmir Shaivism, which goes so far as to transcend the distinction between non-dualism and dualism.
such an approach makes possible the self-deification of being in both an lhp sense and an rhp sense.

this is also the case of more orthodox Western traditions where the being finally becomes a God in contact with the source of all divinity.

 

[Mlecch]

Left hand path and self-Deification
in a more western sense is also present in dualistic siddhanta Shaivism.
I quote from an article: The Shaiva Siddhânta, or Doctrine of Shiva is a dualistic Shaiva tradition insofar as it considers that Shiva is eternally separated from the souls of creatures. When a human attains deliverance, he does not become Shiva, but he becomes equal to Shiva, omniscient and omnipotent like him.

Duality is a Vedic view. It is spelled out in the Vedas and Agamas along with monism. Look in Samkhya - Wikipedia. Shaiva Siddhanta is based on the Vedas and the Agamas at the same time. Shaiva Siddhanta considers the Agamas to be natural, ancient commentaries on the Vedas, revealing the true essence of the Vedas. Philosophically, Shaiva Siddhanta is identical to the early and epic Samkhya Darshana. The arguments about the existence of God in Shaiva Siddhanta are identical to those in Nyaya Darshana. Thus, Shaiva Siddhanta is not Vedanta Darshana at all, but a different and very ancient tradition. Tirumular or Maykandar were only systematizers, they were not at all the founders of the Shaivite Agamanta, which may have its roots in the pre-Vedic period.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Is there really a difference in which path one takes to achieve their spiritual goals? Is one path more valid then the other.

Why is one looked at as being benign, while the other is looked at as dangerous?

------

I see one as searching for the Gods without - RHP

While the other searches for the Gods within. -LHP

(Yes this is a severe simplification and generalization)

Edit: Left-hand path and right-hand path - Wikipedia

P.S. as an aside, if there are two paths, and multiple paths within each overarching path... Then multiplicity is a fundamental aspect of reality.

RHP is a slow, steady path. There are less chances you will be led astray although it can still happen. Any spiritual development or gain will be after many years or lifetimes

In the LHP there can sudden leaps and fast progress - you can gain both power and psychic, magical abilities. But you could lose your bearings and turn to evil. You will attract all kinds of dangerous entities. Even if you don't turn to evil, you could literally go mad/crazy. Ultimately (after many lifetimes) you may become so powerful and so evil that the Gods will have to destroy you.

 

[1137]

Is there really a difference in which path one takes to achieve their spiritual goals? Is one path more valid then the other.

Why is one looked at as being benign, while the other is looked at as dangerous?

------

I see one as searching for the Gods without - RHP

While the other searches for the Gods within. -LHP

(Yes this is a severe simplification and generalization)

Edit: Left-hand path and right-hand path - Wikipedia

P.S. as an aside, if there are two paths, and multiple paths within each overarching path... Then multiplicity is a fundamental aspect of reality.

The Wikipedia for this has always been terrible for some reason. But yes this division is very real and it applies well beyond religion and spirituality. Like you center your definitions around gods for instance, but gods need not even enter the equation.

 

[The Hammer]

The Wikipedia for this has always been terrible for some reason. But yes this division is very real and it applies well beyond religion and spirituality. Like you center your definitions around gods for instance, but gods need not even enter the equation.

Even looking at the Self as God. Which is very common in American/Western LHP. Divinity of some form is acknowledged. Even atheistic Anton LaVey still referenced demons and dark Gods.

Idk if I've seen LHP group that outright denied all forms of divinity and uses symbology that doesn't derive from some other religious symbolism.

 

[1137]

Even looking at the Self as God. Which is very common in American/Western LHP. Is also God focused. Atheistic Anton LaVey still referenced demons and dark Gods.

Idk if I've seen LHP group that outright denied all forms of divinity and uses symbology that doesn't derive from some other religious symbolism.

That isn't exactly what I meant, let me clarify. A debate between a Democrat and Republican that never even broached the subject of God would still be RHP. The hardest deterministic physicalist imaginable who thinks symbolism is stupid and gods are silly is still most likely RHP. People tend to think the L/RHP divide is a religious thing, but it isn't. Religion is just one thing it applies to.

 

[The Hammer]

That isn't exactly what I meant, let me clarify. A debate between a Democrat and Republican that never even broached the subject of God would still be RHP. The hardest deterministic physicalist imaginable who thinks symbolism is stupid and gods are silly is still most likely RHP. People tend to think the L/RHP divide is a religious thing, but it isn't. Religion is just one thing it applies to.

I see what you meant now. And I wouldn't be sure how to extend that to lifestyle or politics.

But I do see the RHP LHP divide as one who follows the status quo (oftentimes in religion), and one who engages in taboo breaking (oftentimes for spiritual purposes).

 

[1137]

I see what you meant now. And I wouldn't be sure how to extend that to lifestyle or politics.

But I do see the RHP LHP divide as one who follows the status quo (oftentimes in religion), and one who engages in taboo breaking (oftentimes for spiritual purposes).

Well take for example any political path which seeks to put the individual below the majority. This can be anything from totalitarianism to utilitarianism, they all fall into the ideology of submitting the self to something greater, which is RHP ideology.