[LHP] Why am I afraid?

[Kapalika]

If there was a clear and finite definition of LHP then there wouldn't be any debate.

It doesn't help when you keep advocating for a definition that's only like 10 years old.

l didn't just use the thousands of years old meaning but also a general definition that fits Satanism, Setian and Luciferian ect Of course we could open the can of worms... well I kind of did, about Blavatsky's definition.

It seems to me that you are similar to an Evangelical who says Catholics are not Christians, only Evangelicals and Protestant sects like theirs are Christians. Evangelicalism came out of movements in the 1800's and similarly your self-styled flavor of LHP came out within this lifetime. Catholicism is analogous to Tantra, the Mainline churches to Satanism, and Evangelicals to your type of LHP.

Both positions are equally absurd because they are essentially the same type of argument. I hope this illustrates to you that your definition is untenable.

Not invalid, just not what the Western LHP is about, and the OP should be given the opportunity to understand there are differences.

She knows there is diversity and I know her on a basis you don't. It's implicit that what I say is my personal view on it. However, being very good friends with western styled LHP'ers, I've never had the accusation that I am somehow not LHP. But they also don't make the hard distinction you do and also learned how much alike my sect of Tantra, regardless of if it's practiced R/LHP is similar to their own beliefs.

 

[EtuMalku]

It doesn't help when you keep advocating for a definition that's only like 10 years old.

Why? Is there some kind of time frame which gives more authenticity to something? If that was the case we would all be practicing some form of neanderthal religion.

It seems to me that you are similar to an Evangelical who says Catholics are not Christians, only Evangelicals and Protestant sects like theirs are Christians. Evangelicalism came out of movements in the 1800's and similarly your self-styled flavor of LHP came out within this lifetime. Catholicism is analogous to Tantra, the Mainline churches to Satanism, and Evangelicals to your type of LHP.

Don't be concerned with what you think I am or what you think about me, be concerned with what I am saying.

. . . being very good friends with western styled LHP'ers, I've never had the accusation that I am somehow not LHP. But they also don't make the hard distinction you do and also learned how much alike my sect of Tantra, regardless of if it's practiced R/LHP is similar to their own beliefs.

Well, you have now.

 

[Kapalika]

The RHP religions are diametrically opposed to the Western LHP.

I don't see how you can just lump all other religions like that.

Perennial philosophy is the understanding that all the world's (RHP) religions share a single, universal doctrine.

Lol what? Are you ****ing serious? You gotta be joking.

This doctrine posits that the highest good that human life can achieve is through the union with a Supreme Being / Energy of the Universe. The way in which this is achieved is through the deception of one's conscious awareness into believing that one has been accepted by this Supreme Being / Energy otherwise known as the objective universe.

Okay, so you are serious, you just don't know anything about religion so lump it all together in this bizarre, over simplified and misinformed view.

So, the RHP is the path of union with universal reality (God or Nature). When this union is completed the individual self is annihilated, the individual will becomes one with the divine or natural order.

Well all I can say again is you clearly don't know anything about most religions. Extremely few religions say we will be annihilated since cough cough most have afterlifes.

The Western LHP is the path of non-union with the objective universe, the way of isolating consciousness within one's subjective universe and, in a state of self-imposod psychic solitude, refining the soul or psyche to increasingly perfect levels. The objective universe is then made to harmonize itself with the will of the individual psyche, not the other way around.

This sounds more like psychosis than the Left Hand Path since it seeks to focus solely on the subjective universe to the exclusion of reality around it.

Interestingly, Trika addresses this. The macrocosm can't be changed by the microcosm until the Tantric accepts their nature as part of the Shakti expression. We can call this union but it's not a monistic union like you claim all religions to be; Trika says that the individualization is kept in the nondual integration of the micro and macrocosms and it's at that point that the practitioner becomes Shiva and the Universe their Shakti expression. There is no annihilation in this; one retains sense of self, memory, and soul.

In technical terms this is called the yoga of Shivagama and this limited self to unlimited self is described as the Citta transforming into Cit by way of reconfiguration. Western occultism has similar language with the idea of a Higher Self, or as you put it a more perfected self.

And guess what? You can do that as either Left Hand Path or Right Hand Path. Kashmir Shaivism has sects of both and yet it's stated outcome is exactly the same as what you are claiming is the 'Western Left Hand Path'. They just don't do it by isolating one's self from reality.

 

[Kapalika]

Why? Is there some kind of time frame which gives more authenticity to something? If that was the case we would all be practicing some form of neanderthal religion.

You are conflating definitions, which is what you made a comment about, with what religious practices are more valid. I only addressed the former.

 

[EtuMalku]

They just don't do it by isolating one's self from reality.

Reality? As in Objective Reality/Universe?

You just confirmed my argument for the difference between Eastern LHP and Western LHP.

 

[Kapalika]

Reality? As in Objective Reality/Universe?

You just confirmed my argument for the difference between Eastern LHP and Western LHP.

If you think that you didn't really understand what I said, since that is being taken out of context.

You're also changing your definition since up until now you argued that it was most importantly about making the Universe conform to Individual will as it is the "goal".

If Trika has the same goal as your WLHP, why wouldn't you consider it LHP?

 

[EtuMalku]

If you think that you didn't really understand what I said, since that is being taken out of context.

You're also changing your definition since up until now you argued that it was most importantly about making the Universe conform to Individual will as it is the "goal".

If Trika has the same goal as your WLHP, why wouldn't you consider it LHP?

A cursory search online for Western LHP brings up plenty of explanations between East and West LHP's. I don't need to keep reiterating this to you, since obviously you refuse to accept the differences as this would negate your belief that you are in some way on the only true LHP.

 

[Kapalika]

A cursory search online for Western LHP brings up plenty of explanations between East and West LHP's. I don' need to keep reiterating this to you, since obviously you refuse to accept the differences

I've never known you to relent. I asked you specifically what you thought about that if so. Searching online won't tell me what you make of it so I can safely assume you don't want to deal with the implication.

since this would negate your belief that you are in some way on the only true LHP.

This is a lie.

I actually can prove that you are intentionally lying by my earlier post that was right after this started:

and so so called 'eastern LHP' will always be as much Left Hand Path as it's western counterparts.

I can only say it's as LHP as the western counterparts if I also consider the western counterparts (Satanism, Setian ect) to be LHP as well.

Go ahead, try to find a single person anywhere on the forums or entire internet I've ever said isn't Left Hand Path when they identified as such. You won't find any such statement by me, ever. Fact is, you're simply projecting at this point; you're literally accusing me of what you do constantly on this forum.

 

[EtuMalku]

You're still focusing on me and not what I'm saying. That' no way to have a discussion.

The very first thing you read in the Wikipedia article on Right and Left Hand Paths is:

Not to be confused with Vamachara or Dakshinachara.

I have no idea who this person is but they make valid statements, albeit general, differentiating between all four Path groups that even a dolt could comprehend.
Eastern Right Hand Path: follow a set blueprint in order to unite and dissolve the personal Self into the All.

Eastern Left Hand Path: purposely go against the set blueprint to unite and dissolve the Self into the All.

Western Right Hand Path: follow a set blueprint in order to enter the afterlife of a specific deity/deities, and remain submissive to them.

Western Left Hand Path: use or ignore the blueprint as it benefits or fits with your morals, separate the Self from both the All and deities in order to become a deity themselves.

I should also note that what I stated about perennial philosophy is the definition of it, not something I made up for my argument.

 

[Kapalika]

You're still focusing on me and not what I'm saying. That' no way to have a discussion.

The very first thing you read in the Wikipedia article on Right and Left Hand Paths is:

Not to be confused with Vamachara or Dakshinachara.

That's probably more so for historical reasons. The terms are considered the same and this is even addressed in the LHP and RHP article. It even points to the western usage of the term but they are still considered the same:

"The occidental use of the terms Left-Hand Path and Right Hand-Path originated with Madame Blavatsky, a 19th-century occultist who founded the Theosophical Society. She had travelled across parts of southern Asia and claimed to have met with many mystics and magical practitioners in India and Tibet. She developed the term Left-Hand Path as a translation of the term Vamachara"

We also know this since on the Vamachara article it says:

"Vāmācāra (Sanskrit: वामाचार, Sanskrit pronunciation: [ʋɑːmɑːcɑːrə]) is a Sanskrit term meaning "left-handed attainment" and is synonymous with "Left-Hand Path" or "Left-path" (Sanskrit: Vāmamārga)."

That link leads right back to the article you gave.

You can stop taking things out of context now.

I have no idea who this person is but they make valid statements, albeit general, differentiating between all four Path groups that even a dolt could comprehend.
Eastern Right Hand Path: follow a set blueprint in order to unite and dissolve the personal Self into the All.

This is again a total lack of understanding about and a misrepresentation of eastern religions. Viashanvaism, Shakta, most of Shaivism, and a number of historical and orthodox schools are dualistic don't hold that we "absorb" into anything.

Eastern Left Hand Path: purposely go against the set blueprint to unite and dissolve the Self into the All.

This is again a misrepresentation since I literally gave you an example of how my own religion of Kashmir Shaivism doesn't have the self "dissolve" but retains individualization. It also can't even be remotely true for the vast majority of LHP Shakta since they believe in a hard dualism.

I should also note that what I stated about perennial philosophy is the definition of it, not something I made up for my argument.

I never said you made it up, I just said it was a retarded and misinformed argument.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, not at all.

So you have absolute faith a good exists outside of your mind?

OR

The thought it might not doesn't bother you?

 

[EtuMalku]

And for anyone who thinks Kashmir Shaivism is anything other than an Eastern LHP and ultimately the same goal as any Eastern RHP, here is a leading proponent clearly saying it is

Final Goal in Kashmir Shaivism | Swami Lakshmanjoo interview

 

[Liu]

***Mod Post***

Moved to General Debates.

Okay, I guess moving both the threads was the best option here, therefore thanks.

There’s an assumption that I’m following Christianity but I’m not. I believe in God but consider myself non-religious, I don’t the think that RHP should be pigeon holed to specific religions. But why is it the opposite of the LHP? Is there a notion that the LHP is more liberating or allows for more self exploration than the RHP?

Since you capitalize god that was my impression, yes. Which god do you believe in if not the Christian one? Or do you believe in that god but with an entirely different theology?

I agree that the term RHP is not restricted to a single religion, but I don't think anyone here implied so?

RHP and LHP are at least in that much opposed that regardless of their definition it's normally assumed that one can't be on both simultaneously.

And yes, freedom and self-exploration is very much a virtue and goal among most LHPers so that we at least assume it to be not supported much by the RHP. People nowadays don't seem to self-identify as RHPers, though, so it's difficult to say whether that assumption is true.
I mean, I so far found a spiritual connection almost only to things I consider LHP in one way or another, but that might be circular reasoning if I just assume that if I don't like some approach it might be RHP and if I like it it must be LHP, even if I don't think that those are the only criteria I use.

For most of the other points made in the meantime I'll refer you all this comment I made in the LHP-thread as it covers most of it already:

The division into dakshinachara and vamachara is a relatively late one in the history of Hinduism perhaps going back no more than a thousand to fifteen-hundred years the sects of Hinduism which strictly can be said to belong to the vamamarga do not formally belong to the most archaic levels of historical Vedic religion.

The great Indo-European cultural and linguistic migrations beginning around 4000 B.C.E. graphically shows the true root of “western” culture and the Western LHP.

You are aware that these migrations are also the root of Hinduism and therefore ultimately also the eastern LHP?

What is essential to realize about the Western LHP aspects of ancient Odinism is that it provided a traditional, established method of self-transformation along a divine model without an intended melding with that god.

Odin only became the main deity quite late in Germanic history, and whether historic Odinism was LHP is very much open to debate - I doubt it can be proven from the attested texts but you may try and convince me otherwise.

Furthermore, why would you say that the LHP is opposed to melding with a deity? Not only in the eastern LHP it's commonly the goal, but also in anticosmic Satanism, and depending on what you mean by deity it's even in e.g. Setianism because the deity one wants to become one with there is one's true self (which is also a common notion in the eastern LHP and in less literal interpretations of anticosmic Satanism).

And if we take into account the RHP (be it Christianity or Hinduism), if it's not mysticism (which in itself is quite LHPy in my opinion) it's normally not about melding with the deity whatsoever, on the contrary, most would consider that notion sacrilege.

The (western) left-hand path is then the path of non-union with the objective universe. It is the way of isolating consciousness within the subjective universe and, in a state of self-imposed psychic solitude, refining the soul or psyche to ever more perfect levels. The objective universe is then made to harmonize itself with the will of the individual psyche instead of the other way around.

When taking to its extreme this only works in body-mind-dualism, and if not it's also common in the eastern LHP according to my impression.

Paraphrased from 'Lords of the Left Hand Path'

Just because Stephen Flowers says so doesn't make it true. Also, that book's over 250 pages long, so if you want me to re-read the parts to see in which context they were written please tell which pages or chapter you paraphrased it from.

To continue from the other thread:

Not invalid, just not what the Western LHP is about, and the OP should be given the opportunity to understand there are differences.

@Kapalika pointed out some of those differences herself in the thread in question, and regarding the other characteristics of the LHP which she described they seemed to me to also apply to the western LHP.

Depends on what you mean by 'occult practices'.

Of course, but since it was you who brought up the term it would be helpful to hear your definition of it.

How would you define RHP? (so these people know it's them you're asking to comment)

I can think of several definitions, and all of them would influence the result we would get from asking so I'd prefer not to restrict the question to any of them, especially since I'm not sure which one's I'd subscribe to.
But for the record, e.g.:
- RHP is what is not LHP
- RHP is a spiritual path in which an orthodoxy is followed without (much) questioning
- RHP is what people who identify themselves as RHP do
- RHP is the form of religion that is the mainstream in a given society
- RHP is a spirituality with moral dualism
- RHP is a spirituality in which one subjects one's will to an authority considered to be external, and considers this authority infalsible so that it overrides all others of one's personal convictions

 

[tayla]

Try the Zen approach, and ask yourself the question: 'Who is it that is afraid?', and is there really a self called 'I' that is afraid, or is there simply the experience of fear itself? And if, in your examination, you discover that there is no such 'I' that is afraid, then what? Are you now free of fear? That is to say, is there now only the experience of freedom, without an experiencer of the experience called 'I'?

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

 

[Infinitum]

<rant>

As a non-theist I find it ridiculous that Western LHP would somehow hinge on becoming a god. Yes, it's a helpful shorthand, but it's far from enough to warrant being the defining characteristic for what LHP means -- despite being terribly fashionable at the moment.

I spent a good while looking at LHP literature as well as academic studies and the two things that stuck with me about LHP are attitude and methods. Attitude because those who lean towards the left are individualistic, they very clearly have opposing views to the "mainstream" on how to deal with deities, spirits, magic...

Take your pick depending on the tradition you work within. My personal worldview pulls me towards animism and Paganism despite my rational self clinging to materialism, for someone else it's Christianity or Hinduism or, yes, even Satanism (just think of all the LHP people who dislike LaVey).

People like us seem to always be in opposition to something, it's what makes us tick. It doesn't matter if you call it defiance or the path to enlightenment (which, curiosly, Setianism sort of strives for), it's safe to say we like to live dangerously. That's what we share, not some sort of metaphysical mumbo jumbo about specific ways of attaining something that may or may not exist.

Sure, feel free to call me a heretic at this point. But this is what I've seen and heard here and elsewhere. The narrow-mindedness of many has made me stick mostly to myself because it's nobody's business how I or any other practitioner conducts their rituals or which philosophies they adhere to (or vehemently refuse to adhere to) -- we all flout our own boats and to hell with the rest. And because there's a limited way of actually floating a boat, we end up with the same goals and the same experiences. That's why LHP can be characterized as it's own thing and not a subtype of whatever religion you want to place your origo on.

In which sense arguing theology within LHP is... highly questionable at best. Argue attitude all you like, but good luck agreeing on the metaphysics.

Which brings me to methods. Or really more the lack of methodology. Why is LHP so often defined as the opposite of whatever RHP is? Because LHP is best understood as the lack of things. There are no rules, there are no gods bossing you about (there may be gods, but they aren't the bosses), there are no morning prayers, no holy books, not even a clergy...

There's also a lack of fear, or at the very least a celebration of it. "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." Or maybe everything is true, but it doesn't matter, because everything is still permitted. If it doesn't get you killed, or jailed, or sent to Hell (and what if you were?) and if it does the job -- which for most if not all of us is self-improvement -- then why not do it, and have a little fun on the way?

But there's no one to drag you up when you sink instead of swimming. That's the danger and the fascination with LHP, because why would you let someone else keep you afloat if you know how to swim on on your own?

It's a challenge, and I know I function only if there's a challenge; anything else slowly kills me inside. I think LHP stems from that very specific spiritual (and intellectual) drive, and with most it's something that either is or isn't there -- people don't start to follow LHP, they wake up on that path one day and have no interest in turning back.

And unless they go insane or fall into thinking someone else's map is the terrain itself, just walking that path is likely to get them to the destination.

(Yes, I am a heretic.)

So, my advice to @Deidre and honestly anyone else who struggles with finding their place in the universe is: stop stressing about it. None of it matters, just do your own thing, and count yourself lucky when you find someone who does the same. More often than not you'll find you have more in common than at first you realise.

</rant>

 

[Deidre]

I’ve been reading. Thank you for the replies, just a busy few days and I’m feeling overwhelmed with some things. But I plan to reply thank you for taking the time to address my question and help me to think it through. I want to think it through.

 

[Deidre]

So you have absolute faith a good exists outside of your mind?

OR

The thought it might not doesn't bother you?

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

 

[Kapalika]

And for anyone who thinks Kashmir Shaivism is anything other than an Eastern LHP and ultimately the same goal as any Eastern RHP, here is a leading proponent clearly saying it is

Final Goal in Kashmir Shaivism | Swami Lakshmanjoo interview

Emphasis added.

You're still wrong because you are still conflating Hinduism as a whole as having one monolithic concept of Moksha; it doesn't. Hinduism is many discrete religions with varying ideas of what the goal is. Your critical mistake is assuming that all RHP religions have the same theology. They don't.

RHP and LHP only have the same goal when we are talking about practicing either within the same sect, contextually. As @Infinitum out it's about methods and attitude, not theology or metaphysics.

I've said a number of times in the past on this site that Trika can be practiced as either RHP or LHP that the theology is the same. I personally practice it as LHP. There are specific LHP sects such as Kaula or specific RHP sects such as Spanda. It's roots either LHP or RHP are still LHP (the ancient Kapalikas). The point is LHP or RHP isn't about beliefs.

You are straight up again taking things out of context. That context is that Kashmir Shaivsim's theology is QUIET different from the rest of Hinduism.

You can find this by reading the Jaidev Singh translation of the Shiva Sutras, which Lakshman Joo himself helped translate and give commentary to. Lakshman himself said that the INDIVIDUAL becomes Shiva and that they KEEP INDIVIDUALIZATION. I read it myself he straight up said this in the Book.

This is different from all other forms of Hinduism because it's the only form I'm aware of to say that you remain individuated and yet equal to god at the same time.

And to prove that, I will quote a very lengthy section in full context.Note, since i know you know nothing about the subject, that Shivagama is the Moksha concept in Kashmir Shiavism. All talk of Samkhya and Vedanta is contrasting those religions with Kashmir Shaivism.

I've added Emphasis below to highlight critical points describing Shivagama. This is just one part, it emphasizes the individualization throughout the 300 some pages of commentaries.

The ultimate aim of both Samkhya-yoga and Vedanta is mukti (liberation). By mukti, both of them understand Kaivalya, perfect isolation or Soleness, the only difference being that Samkhya-yoga aims at isolation from Prakrti while Vedanta aims at isolation from Maya. There is, however, one difference between the two in the concept of Self. According to SamkhyaYoga, Self or Purusa is saccit (existence-consciousness) and there is nothing higher than Purusa. According to Vedanta, Self or Atma is Saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss) and is identical with Brahman.

The ultimate aim of Saivagama is not simply mukti or Self-realization but Sivatva-yojana acquiring the status of Siva. In the words of Saivagama, the ultimate ideal is not merely Atmavyapti but Siva-vyapti. In Atma-vyapti, there is Self-realization, but the concept of Self-realization in Saivagama is different from that of Vedanta. In Vedanta, Self is merely jnana devoid of any activity whatsoever. In Saivagama, Self is characterized by both jnana and kriya. But Atma-vyapti in Saivagama is a lower ideal. The highest ideal is Siva-vyapti. In Siva-vyapti, there is Siva-Sakti-samarasya, fusion and union of Siva-sakti. In Atma-vyapti, there is limited jnana-kriya (knowledge and activity); in Siva-vyapti, there is universal, all-pervasive jnanakriyd. This Siva-vyapti is the status of Parama Siva who is simultaneously transcendent to and immanent in the universe. This comes about only when unmana sakti is developed.

In Vedantic liberation, Maya disappears and along with it goes the wretched universe which was only a fiction conjured up by her. In Siva-vyapti, the universe appears as a magnificent expression of Siva's - one's own - Sakti.

The liberated Self in Samkhya-yoga is only Saccit (existenceconsciousness). The Self or Purusa is freed of all pain and suffering, but he has no positive bliss. In Vedanta, the characteristic of Self is saccidananda (existence-consciousness-bliss). There is positive bliss in liberation. But it is only atmananda, the delight of Self. In Siva-vyapti, the entire universe gleams as the wondrous delight of I-consciousness.

Both in Samkhya-Yoga and Vedanta, the citta or mind reverts to its causal matrix, the Prakrti at the time of liberation. Patanjala yoga has a special word for this reversion, viz; pratiprasava which means reabsorption, remergence (into Prakrti). The defiling buddhi or citta has to withdraw into its primal cause. It is only then that Purusa can shine in his pristine, inherent glory. The citta can never be allowed to enter the sacred precincts of Purusa. It is an alien and has to be repatriated to its original home.

Saivagama which is undiluted advaita (non-dualism) has, however, a word of cheer even for the poor citta. According to it, the citta of the self-realized person becomes regenerated, transformed, transfigured into Cit (the Universal Divine Consciousness). Sutra 13 of Pratyabhijnahrdayam announces the reassuring tidings of its higher destiny in unmistakable terms

So, you can see by the full context that Shivagama, which is the endpoint of the practice of Trika, is wholly separate from Vedanta or Samkhya which are the two main sects you tend to paint all of Hinduism as being. You can't correctly characterize Kashmir Shaivism as being them because it's fundamentally different.

If you are not versed in the terminology it's explicitly stating that the self (citta) becomes god (Shiva) and is characterized by the ability to act, individualization and by pure knowledge of one's self.

 

[godnotgod]

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

 

[EtuMalku]

Emphasis added.

You're still wrong because you are still conflating Hinduism as a whole as having one monolithic concept of Moksha; it doesn't. Hinduism is many discrete religions with varying ideas of what the goal is. Your critical mistake is assuming that all RHP religions have the same theology. They don't.

RHP and LHP only have the same goal when we are talking about practicing either within the same sect, contextually. As @Infinitum out it's about methods and attitude, not theology or metaphysics.

I've said a number of times in the past on this site that Trika can be practiced as either RHP or LHP that the theology is the same. I personally practice it as LHP. There are specific LHP sects such as Kaula or specific RHP sects such as Spanda. It's roots either LHP or RHP are still LHP (the ancient Kapalikas). The point is LHP or RHP isn't about beliefs.

You are straight up again taking things out of context. That context is that Kashmir Shaivsim's theology is QUIET different from the rest of Hinduism.

You can find this by reading the Jaidev Singh translation of the Shiva Sutras, which Lakshman Joo himself helped translate and give commentary to. Lakshman himself said that the INDIVIDUAL becomes Shiva and that they KEEP INDIVIDUALIZATION. I read it myself he straight up said this in the Book.

This is different from all other forms of Hinduism because it's the only form I'm aware of to say that you remain individuated and yet equal to god at the same time.

And to prove that, I will quote a very lengthy section in full context.Note, since i know you know nothing about the subject, that Shivagama is the Moksha concept in Kashmir Shiavism. All talk of Samkhya and Vedanta is contrasting those religions with Kashmir Shaivism.

I've added Emphasis below to highlight critical points describing Shivagama. This is just one part, it emphasizes the individualization throughout the 300 some pages of commentaries.



So, you can see by the full context that Shivagama, which is the endpoint of the practice of Trika, is wholly separate from Vedanta or Samkhya which are the two main sects you tend to paint all of Hinduism as being. You can't correctly characterize Kashmir Shaivism as being them because it's fundamentally different.

If you are not versed in the terminology it's explicitly stating that the self (citta) becomes god (Shiva) and is characterized by the ability to act, individualization and by pure knowledge of one's self.

Whatever you believe Shaivism to be, it is not a Western LHP.

Here are a few quotes from several Shaivites:

In Shaivism in general, Shiva is the name for the absolute or transcendental consciousness. The Kashmir Shaivite is not so much concerned with worshiping a personal God as he is with attaining the transcendental state of Siva consciousness. Sadhana leads to the assimilation of the object (world) in the subject (I) until the Self (Shiva) stands revealed as one with the universe.

The goal-liberation-is sustained recognition (pratyabhijna) of one's true Self as nothing but Shiva. The individual is a mini Shiva, who, when he recognizes his true self, becomes one with the universal consciousness.

The attainment of Shivatva may be understood as complete merger in Shiva. Given these tenets from the stance of the Western LHP Kashmir Shaivism is a RHP as the adherents are in some way or another in union with an external deity (Shiva) and not one's unique, individual Greater Self separate from the objective universe and from external influences such as deities, of which the WLHP non-theists do not believe in.

Sources were:

Subhash Kak
Dr. B.N. Kalla
R. K. Sapru
Dr. C. L. Raina
Prof. M. L. Kokiloo
Dr. R. K. Kaw
Shri Jankinath Kaul 'Kamal'