[LHP] Why am I afraid?

[EtuMalku]

Śāktopāya - the path of the Divine Energy, the path of Śakti, the intermediary path; here the yogi must be able to perfectly control his emotions and thoughts and merge his consciousness with one or more Divine Energies, Śakti

Shaivism is one of the major traditions within Hinduism that reveres Shiva as the Supreme Beingor its metaphysical concept of Brahman

Again this may be many things, however it is nothing like the Western LHP.

The WLHP has evolved over time in to many different paths, including Satanism, Luciferianism, Setianism, Ahrimanism, Mercurænism and similar paths.They all share certain common traits – apathy towards cultural norms/values, a high respect for subjective experience, and perhaps most importantly, a focus on the individual Self (as something Isolate and unnatural from the objective universe).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

This whole Western and Eastern distinction is needlessly divisive and doesn't add anything.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I honestly don’t know until you asked it like this.

And now?

 

[Liu]

I now think that both of these paths are what are called in psychology as one of the Five Egotistical States, namely Idolatrous Love, which is a projection of the ego onto some idol.

THE EGOTISTICAL STATES

1. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY PROJECTION OF THE EGO

This is idolatrous love, in which the ego is projected onto another being. The pretention to divinity as 'distinct' has left my organism and is now fixed onto the organism of the other. The affective situation resembles that above, with the difference that the other has taken my place in my scale of values. I desire the existence of the other-idol, and am against everything that is opposed to them. I no longer love my own organism except in so far as it is the faithful servant of the idol; apart from that I have no further sentiments towards my organism, I am indifferent to it, and, if necessary, I can give my life for the safety of my idol (I can sacrifice my organism to my Ego fixed on the idol; like Empedocles throwing himself down the crater of Etna in order to immortalise his Ego). As for the rest of the world, I hate it if it is hostile to my idol; if it is not hostile and if my contemplation of the idol fills me with joy (that is to say, with egotistical affirmation), I love indiscriminately all the rest of the world. If the idolised being rejects me to the point of forbidding me all possession of my Ego in them, the apparent love can be turned to hate.

Hubert Benoit, Zen and the Psychology of Transformation

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Hubert-Benoit-The-Supreme-Doctrine.pdf
*****

"The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha's teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at that point where the Self settles naturally upon itself."

excerpted from: How to Cook Your Life: From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment
By Dogen, Kosho Uchiyama Roshi

How to Cook Your Life

Nah, that's only the bhakti-approach if anything. Many LHPers are actually atheists and while they may use something similar to the technique you describe they do it as a psychological tool, fully aware that they are merely externalizing a part of themselves, and as a method of self-work/-improvement.

 

[Deidre]

And now?

I’m still thinking lol that’s progress actually

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Edited by moderator

Seriously though, you prattle on and on about how your imaginary line is so darned important. It really isn't. No content is added by making two piles of apples.

 

[EtuMalku]

Seriously though, you prattle on and on about how your imaginary line is so darned important. It really isn't. No content is added by making two piles of apples.

Because you understand all of this as simply to be two piles of the same fruit only speaks volumes of your ignorance into these matters. When something is not or ill-defined, it is Anything/Everything and Ultimately Nothing.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Because you understand all of this as simply to be two piles of the same fruit only speaks volumes of your ignorance into these matters. When something is not or ill-defined, it is Anything/Everything and Ultimately Nothing.

Yes, it must be my ignorance. It couldn't possibly be your own level of understanding, not after all these years?

 

[EtuMalku]

This whole Western and Eastern distinction is needlessly divisive and doesn't add anything.

Doesn't add anything to what?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Doesn't add anything to what?

Anything. It's as if you are trying to use this phony baloney distinction to make a name for yourself. Oh look its the 'western left hand path' guy. Only, besides the catchy acronym, nothing has been added, anywhere. No additional philosophy, ideas, or perspectives have been added. It's a nothing burger.

 

[EtuMalku]

Anything. It's as if you are trying to use this phony baloney distinction to make a name for yourself. Oh look its the 'western left hand path' guy. Only, besides the catchy acronym, nothing has been added, anywhere. No additional philosophy, ideas, or perspectives have been added. It's a nothing burger.

Well, it's not just me, it's an entire population of occultists who have adopted the label and more importantly the Ideal behind there being an actual WLHP which differs geatly from anything else with the words LHP.

Because you either cannot comprehend or refuse to comprehend the philosophies which provide the structure for the WLHP is not of my concern.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, it's not just me, it's an entire population of occultists who have adopted the label and more importantly the Ideal behind there being an actual WLHP which differs geatly from anything else with the words LHP.

Because you either cannot comprehend or refuse to comprehend the philosophies which provide the structure for the WLHP is not of my concern.

I comprehend it just fine. I comprehended it well before you decided to add your little distinction, back when it was exactly the same group of thelemites and setians and other such flaky sorts doing and saying the same flaky things as you see and read now.its the same because it's the same long dead peoples ideas.

A whole population huh?

Lets google it. We have a reddit post you made some years back, a link to religious forums where you posted about it, and...on page 2(because the rest don't use that term on page one)..we have a quiz you made! Quite the population lol.

 

[EtuMalku]

I comprehend it just fine. I comprehended it well before you decided to add your little distinction, back when it was exactly the same group of thelemites and setians and other such flaky sorts doing and saying the same flaky things as you see and read now.its the same because it's the same long dead peoples ideas.

A whole population huh?

Lets google it. We have a reddit post you made some years back, a link to religious forums where you posted about it, and...on page 2(because the rest don't use that term on page one)..we have a quiz you made! Quite the population lol.

I don't know what you think you are proving with any of this. The WLHP is a thing, many people besides myself accept the ideology and definition. You don't, that is fine.

If you can argue a case against it, then go ahead by all means. But do add something to the discussion other than condescension.

 

[godnotgod]

Seems to me it's easier dealing with fear by just ignoring it. No need to dissolve the self to deal with fear.

That's the point: there is no self to dissolve, so who is it that is afraid?

 

[Liu]

That's the point: there is no self to dissolve, so who is it that is afraid?

Of course there is a self, e.g. you who is asking this question or those who read it.
Sure the fear is only something that the self perceives and not an inherent part of the self, but denying the existence of self altogether makes no sense to me. Self is nothing but it is. So I prefer focusing on the fact that even the reasons for the fear are not really part of the self and approaching the matter from this more distanced perspective.

Also, do you identify as an LHPer? Not asking in order to throw you out of the thread if not, but rather out of curiosity how you combine the LHP with the disbelief in self.

 

[Kapalika]

That's the point: there is no self to dissolve, so who is it that is afraid?

What is this Buddhism?

Strictly speaking they don't got a LHP tradition since they don't make orthodox/heterodox divides.

Anyways my point is I'm not sure where you are coming from.

 

[godnotgod]

What is this Buddhism?

Strictly speaking they don't got a LHP tradition since they don't make orthodox/heterodox divides.

Anyways my point is I'm not sure where you are coming from.

All I'm asking is: 'where is this 'self' that is afraid? And who is it that is looking for it? Do you see the dllemma, or no?

Fear is common to everyone, not just those on the LHP.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course there is a self, e.g. you who is asking this question or those who read it.
Sure the fear is only something that the self perceives and not an inherent part of the self, but denying the existence of self altogether makes no sense to me. Self is nothing but it is. So I prefer focusing on the fact that even the reasons for the fear are not really part of the self and approaching the matter from this more distanced perspective.

Also, do you identify as an LHPer? Not asking in order to throw you out of the thread if not, but rather out of curiosity how you combine the LHP with the disbelief in self.

I don't. I'm just asking where this so-called 'self' resides, because Deidre says 'I am afraid'. I'm just asking 'who is it that is afraid?', in order that she might focus her attention on that which is making the statement. You say 'of course it is real', but I don't see any such 'self'. What I see is an illusion we call 'self', 'I', and 'me', that is a collection of past experiences, feelings, titles, images, and ideas called 'I', where no such 'I' actually exists.

It's just an error in thinking. For example, we might come across a whirlpool in a stream and say: 'Oh, look! A whirlpool!', but there is no such thing called a 'whirlpool' as the agent of whirling water; there is only whirling water, sans a 'whirler of whirling water'. Likewise, there is no such agent called 'I' that is afraid; there is only the fear itself. Once this is seen and understood, the nature of the fear starts to become clear. Otherwise, one's 'self' will continue to be yanked along by the fear.

Bottom line is that you are none other than the fear itself. There is no such 'experiencer of the experience' of fear.

 

[Liu]

I don't. I'm just asking where this so-called 'self' resides, because Deidre says 'I am afraid'. I'm just asking 'who is it that is afraid?', in order that she might focus her attention on that which is making the statement. You say 'of course it is real', but I don't see any such 'self'. What I see is an illusion we call 'self', 'I', and 'me', that is a collection of past experiences, feelings, titles, images, and ideas called 'I', where no such 'I' actually exists.

It's just an error in thinking. For example, we might come across a whirlpool in a stream and say: 'Oh, look! A whirlpool!', but there is no such thing called a 'whirlpool' as the agent of whirling water; there is only whirling water, sans a 'whirler of whirling water'. Likewise, there is no such agent called 'I' that is afraid; there is only the fear itself. Once this is seen and understood, the nature of the fear starts to become clear. Otherwise, one's 'self' will continue to be yanked along by the fear.

Bottom line is that you are none other than the fear itself. There is no such 'experiencer of the experience' of fear.

Now that's a different conclusion than the one I normally hear. And while it doesn't convince me, it is some food for thought.

I agree that the attributes we give to the self (or rather to the I) could be considered illusory (or at least volatile and inexact). But awareness itself does exist. I can hardly prove it as it's nothing but subjectivity itself, but the mere fact of having the notion of subjectivity is a sign of its existence. So please tell me why you don't think it does (we might want to move into a different thread for that, though, as this is getting quite off-topic).

Or would you say that if someone is afraid the situation is more accurately described as fear being aware of itself? Because that's what "you are none other than the fear itself" sounds like.
Huh... I kinda can see how you could get to that conclusion.

But even if I'd assume it to be true it still wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that self doesn't exist - it then would be the self of the fear that exists instead.
Yet what about someone having more than one feeling simultaneously? Is it then the mix of these feelings that is aware of itself? Or someone first feeling fear and then joy - are those two different entities being aware of themself and not the other one? Unlikely as there is memory - which is also only something that self experiences and not the self itself, but it is connected to one specific awareness and not to several.

 

[godnotgod]

Now that's a different conclusion than the one I normally hear. And while it doesn't convince me, it is some food for thought.

I agree that the attributes we give to the self (or rather to the I) could be considered illusory (or at least volatile and inexact). But awareness itself does exist. I can hardly prove it as it's nothing but subjectivity itself, but the mere fact of having the notion of subjectivity is a sign of its existence. So please tell me why you don't think it does (we might want to move into a different thread for that, though, as this is getting quite off-topic).

Or would you say that if someone is afraid the situation is more accurately described as fear being aware of itself? Because that's what "you are none other than the fear itself" sounds like.
Huh... I kinda can see how you could get to that conclusion.

But even if I'd assume it to be true it still wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that self doesn't exist - it then would be the self of the fear that exists instead.
Yet what about someone having more than one feeling simultaneously? Is it then the mix of these feelings that is aware of itself? Or someone first feeling fear and then joy - are those two different entities being aware of themself and not the other one? Unlikely as there is memory - which is also only something that self experiences and not the self itself, but it is connected to one specific awareness and not to several.

It's all about consciousness, but not a self that is conscious. Who we are is that very consciousness, which creates an agent of consciousness we then call 'I'. IOW, 'I' is a self-created principle, but it isn't real. It's just a frozen reality.

The attributes we give to the self are real, but the self created from those attributes are not.

Yes, awareness itself exists, but awareness itself does not constitute a 'self'.

The subject/object split is a concoction of the mind as well. It does not actually exist in reality. It takes it's form in the notion that there exists an 'experiencer of the experience'. It is the spiritual experience that dissolves this subject/object split, and we realize that we are the experience itself. IOW, we are not an entity called 'I', but an action, or set of actions as experience.

If 'self' is real, can you point it out? And while doing that, who, or what, is it that is pointing it out? Then, of course, we have the 'self' that is aware of the self being pointed out and of the self that is pointing, on and on into infinite regression.

If, as I claim, that we are the experience itself, then this idea is not off-topic, as, in Deidre's case, she would be the fear itself.

Please understand that I am using the terms 'I', 'me', and 'you' in the conventional sense.

If you are thinking, is there an agent of thought present called 'I', or is there simply thinking, sans 'I'?

Descartes made a big deal of this with his cogito ergo sum.: "I think, therefore I exist" * But once analyzed, the logic falls apart:

Kierkegaard's critique
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito.[24] In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he writes:

The Cartesian cogito ergo sum has been repeated often enough. If this I in cogito is to be understood as an individual human being, then the proposition proves nothing: I am thinking ergo I am, but if I am thinking, then little wonder that I am; that has already been asserted, and the first proposition accordingly says even more than the second. But then if one understands the I in cogito as meaning a particular existing human being, philosophy shouts: ‘Foolishness, foolishness, it is not a question here of your self or my self but of the pure I.’ But surely this pure I can hardly have any other than a pure thought-existence. So what is the sense of the inferential form? There is no conclusion, for the proposition is a tautology. (p. 265; Hannay translation)

Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore, I think
• Therefore, I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.[25]

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.[26] As Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.[27]

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia

*And when not thinking, you then don't exist?