Right hand path Luciferians?

[EverChanging]

I saw the concept of right hand path Luciferianism on another thread. I am pretty sure the humanistic Satanists are right hand path. How is right hand path Luciferianism different from left hand path Luciferianism? Are there any websites or other sources with information on it?

 

[Liu]

In regards to RHP Satanists I rather think of inverse Christians...
Not sure whether I encountered any inverse Christians who actively identify as Luciferian, though.

By the humanists you mean The Satanic Temple?
I would argue that it depends - if they just follow it because it's trendy or because its values sound good, but without actually thinking about it closer, or to belong to the community, I could agree that this is RHP-behaviour. But at least their leaders seem to use it as a tool to force their will onto the world in regards to their values of secularism and equal rights. Except for the fact that many of them are probably physicalist atheists, how is that not compatible with being on the LHP?

 

[Kapalika]

I've never heard anyone claim to be a right hand path Luciferian or Satanist. The idea seems odd to me. It also seems rather presumptuous to label humanistic Satanists as RHP considering that at the heart LHP is compatible with a humanist view albiet in a very individualistic way.

 

[EverChanging]

I've never heard anyone claim to be a right hand path Luciferian or Satanist. The idea seems odd to me. It also seems rather presumptuous to label humanistic Satanists as RHP considering that at the heart LHP is compatible with a humanist view albiet in a very individualistic way.

It seemed right hand path because of their moral code, although it has been pointed out that they are trying to conform the world to their values. Then again, so does the Catholic Church.

 

[Liu]

It seemed right hand path because of their moral code, although it has been pointed out that they are trying to conform the world to their values. Then again, so does the Catholic Church.

Then pretty much all of the atheistic Luciferians would actually be RHP since they have some form of moral code.
It's a matter of where you take your morals from.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, the all of the Luciferian groups I'm in contact with consider Lucifer (or other) worshippers to be RHP.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, the all of the Luciferian groups I'm in contact with consider Lucifer (or other) worshippers to be RHP.

Self-power (LHP) vs. Other-power (RHP)

 

[crossfire]

In regards to RHP Satanists I rather think of inverse Christians...
Not sure whether I encountered any inverse Christians who actively identify as Luciferian, though.

By the humanists you mean The Satanic Temple?
I would argue that it depends - if they just follow it because it's trendy or because its values sound good, but without actually thinking about it closer, or to belong to the community, I could agree that this is RHP-behaviour. But at least their leaders seem to use it as a tool to force their will onto the world in regards to their values of secularism and equal rights. Except for the fact that many of them are probably physicalist atheists, how is that not compatible with being on the LHP?

OP was specifically asking about Luciferianism, not Satanism.

 

[EverChanging]

Self-power (LHP) vs. Other-power (RHP)

I don't consider those two things different since I believe all of our power and actions come from the self as a proximate cause but are ultimately traced back to sources of which we do not have control. I consider "freedom" to be an embrace of that interconnectedness giving rise to ourselves of which we ultimately do not have control. In other words, freedom is to embrace our nature, and yet we do not choose our nature.

 

[Liu]

OP was specifically asking about Luciferianism, not Satanism.

I know; I just pointed out that what he asks for doesn't seem to exist and why.

Actually, the all of the Luciferian groups I'm in contact with consider Lucifer (or other) worshippers to be RHP.

And here we go again, yet another definition of LHP/RHP.

If you worship because that's what you desire to do, then how is that not LHP?

Especially under following assumptions:

I don't consider those two things different since I believe all of our power and actions come from the self as a proximate cause but are ultimately traced back to sources of which we do not have control. I consider "freedom" to be an embrace of that interconnectedness giving rise to ourselves of which we ultimately do not have control. In other words, freedom is to embrace our nature, and yet we do not choose our nature.

I.e. if you believe yourself to be (part of) that deity whom you worship.

 

[EverChanging]

I know; I just pointed out that what he asks for doesn't seem to exist and why.

And here we go again, yet another definition of LHP/RHP.

If you worship because that's what you desire to do, then how is that not LHP?

Especially under following assumptions:

I.e. if you believe yourself to be (part of) that deity whom you worship.

I have not yet been able to find a clear line between the LHP and RHP. I am still unsure how to consider myself or whether it is a useful classification system for me at all.

 

[crossfire]

I know; I just pointed out that what he asks for doesn't seem to exist and why.

And here we go again, yet another definition of LHP/RHP.

If you worship because that's what you desire to do, then how is that not LHP?

I'm just reporting what all of the Luciferian groups I interact with say, both the theistic leaning groups and the non-theistic leaning groups. Worship is generally where they draw the line between LHP Luciferianism and RHP Luciferianism. If you don't worship, then Theism/Atheism/Agnositicism/Transtheism really doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things.

 

[EverChanging]

I'm just reporting what all of the Luciferian groups I interact with say, both the theistic leaning groups and the non-theistic leaning groups. Worship is generally where they draw the line between LHP Luciferianism and RHP Luciferianism. If you don't worship, then Theism/Atheism/Agnositicism/Transtheism really doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things.

Hmm....On my path I worship Jesus as a light bearer/bringer of knowledge or gnosis, and yet in my rituals declare myself as the Jesus/Christ/only Son of God (in this mode) that I worship. The line is *still* blurred. Is there anything like a Middle Path?

 

[Kapalika]

Actually, the all of the Luciferian groups I'm in contact with consider Lucifer (or other) worshippers to be RHP.

I always find that people like this define "worship" subjectively in a way to always exclude the groups they like from the traits that make one a "worshiper" or even define it in a way that connotates submission.

But worship isn't the same thing as submission. I've never seen an issue with someone that worships, it doesn't get in the way of being LHP imo it just means you deeply respect or revere that which you work with.

Self-power (LHP) vs. Other-power (RHP)

But what about when Lucifer as a deity is an empowering entity through which one is using them as a proxy for their self power? They might come to venerate such an entity for it's positive characteristics for which they see as emulating their truer selves,

Is that self power? Other power? Maybe those are just labels. Even with archetypical Luciferians this is what is happening. Just because they don't believe it's real in a theistic way or feel a sense of devotion doesn't mean they are not deriving power from the proxy.

So really it's not much if any different. All that is different is the metaphysical implications of what is going on not the underlying mechanics which is the same.

And speaking from a more historical context there just isn't any distinction of the LHP or RHP along the lines of where "power" derives from (either the self or something else). I don't even really like that concept because it waters down the meaning. I could call a lot of things self power. It doesn't make it anymore against the norms of society since it's actually held to be normal in a lot of contexts. Entrepreneurs, people who value independence, men expected to be stoic, self-taught artists and programmers, just a few example off the top of my head.

Hmm....On my path I worship Jesus as a light bearer/bringer of knowledge or gnosis, and yet in my rituals declare myself as the Jesus/Christ/only Son of God (in this mode) that I worship. The line is *still* blurred. Is there anything like a Middle Path?

This dilemma doesn't exist nearly as much when one understands LHP and RHP in the original context of Hinduism, Buddhism ect. The terms got muddied in the 20th century thanks to western occultists who didn't do enough of their homework. Heck you can walk both paths depending on the context but really the distinction isn't as important unless you go far enough on the spectrum towards the extreme end of the LHP. But then there is no mistaking it.

There are LHP traditions in that fuzzy zone. Based on what you said it's hard to really say. Nothing specifically indicated that you are one or the other. Your description here does sound at least akin to tantras where one imitates the deities to gain powers. Tantra can be RHP or LHP but the only ones I'm actually familiar with that imitate are LHP. So if I had to guess you at least lean towards LHP if not just are, in the traditional sense. But also in the traditional sense it doesn't matter as much unless the practices and mode of practice are more obvious.

I take it part of the reason for this thread was ascertaining where you yourself might fall. So pardon my bit's of advice here and there below if otherwise.

Just do you and make sure to study sources that aren't biased and the rest should fall into place. If you try to be someone else, or go by someone else's subjective perception of the subject (right or wrong) it won't work nearly as well as just being true to yourself.

An important thing to remember about Luciferianism is that truth doesn't care how we feel about something. It just is, and it is without altercation. That's part of why I take such a strict stance on what the LHP is and definitions according to centuries of tradition. Read a variety of sources, get a clear picture. And decide for yourself with a skeptical eye.

And then at a certain point of sufficient understanding in your study if find there is a need for terms such as LHP and RHP to apply to yourself it will just happen without too much internal debate. Sometimes we just got to let the realization or insight come to us when we are ready to comprehend the full implications of it.

 

[crossfire]

Hmm....On my path I worship Jesus as a light bearer/bringer of knowledge or gnosis, and yet in my rituals declare myself as the Jesus/Christ/only Son of God (in this mode) that I worship. The line is *still* blurred. Is there anything like a Middle Path?

I've seen terms like "the complete path" tossed around in Luciferian circles.

 

[crossfire]

I always find that people like this define "worship" subjectively in a way to always exclude the groups they like from the traits that make one a "worshiper" or even define it in a way that connotates submission.

But worship isn't the same thing as submission. I've never seen an issue with someone that worships, it doesn't get in the way of being LHP imo it just means you deeply respect or revere that which you work with.



But what about when Lucifer as a deity is an empowering entity through which one is using them as a proxy for their self power? They might come to venerate such an entity for it's positive characteristics for which they see as emulating their truer selves,

Is that self power? Other power? Maybe those are just labels. Even with archetypical Luciferians this is what is happening. Just because they don't believe it's real in a theistic way or feel a sense of devotion doesn't mean they are not deriving power from the proxy.

So really it's not much if any different. All that is different is the metaphysical implications of what is going on not the underlying mechanics which is the same.

And speaking from a more historical context there just isn't any distinction of the LHP or RHP along the lines of where "power" derives from (either the self or something else). I don't even really like that concept because it waters down the meaning. I could call a lot of things self power. It doesn't make it anymore against the norms of society since it's actually held to be normal in a lot of contexts. Entrepreneurs, people who value independence, men expected to be stoic, self-taught artists and programmers, just a few example off the top of my head.



This dilemma doesn't exist nearly as much when one understands LHP and RHP in the original context of Hinduism, Buddhism ect. The terms got muddied in the 20th century thanks to western occultists who didn't do enough of their homework. Heck you can walk both paths depending on the context but really the distinction isn't as important unless you go far enough on the spectrum towards the extreme end of the LHP. But then there is no mistaking it.

There are LHP traditions in that fuzzy zone. Based on what you said it's hard to really say. Nothing specifically indicated that you are one or the other. Your description here does sound at least akin to tantras where one imitates the deities to gain powers. Tantra can be RHP or LHP but the only ones I'm actually familiar with that imitate are LHP. So if I had to guess you at least lean towards LHP if not just are, in the traditional sense. But also in the traditional sense it doesn't matter as much unless the practices and mode of practice are more obvious.

I take it part of the reason for this thread was ascertaining where you yourself might fall. So pardon my bit's of advice here and there below if otherwise.

Just do you and make sure to study sources that aren't biased and the rest should fall into place. If you try to be someone else, or go by someone else's subjective perception of the subject (right or wrong) it won't work nearly as well as just being true to yourself.

An important thing to remember about Luciferianism is that truth doesn't care how we feel about something. It just is, and it is without altercation. That's part of why I take such a strict stance on what the LHP is and definitions according to centuries of tradition. Read a variety of sources, get a clear picture. And decide for yourself with a skeptical eye.

And then at a certain point of sufficient understanding in your study if find there is a need for terms such as LHP and RHP to apply to yourself it will just happen without too much internal debate. Sometimes we just got to let the realization or insight come to us when we are ready to comprehend the full implications of it.

Within the context of Luciferianism, it boils down to illumination: does it develop your insight, discernment, and intellect, or does it dull it? There are other traditions on the LHP that don't make as big of a deal about this as Luciferianism. From my observations, antinomianism illuminates by having the ego reconcile between id and superego, whereas heterodoxy dulls ego/intellect by having id directly attacking superego, for example.

 

[Kapalika]

Within the context of Luciferianism, it boils down to illumination: does it develop your insight, discernment, and intellect, or does it dull it? There are other traditions on the LHP that don't make as big of a deal about this as Luciferianism. From my observations, antinomianism illuminates by having the ego reconcile between id and superego, whereas heterodoxy dulls ego/intellect by having id directly attacking superego, for example.

You keep using the word "antinomianism" but why should we care what Christianity thinks?

At least for me also I don't find the Freudian idea useful. It was disproven by psychology later on, it was just his guess. To me to hang on to such outdated and disproven concepts is not in keeping with Luciferian values.

I also find the idea that heterodoxy as being negative laughable since it's heterodoxy by which teachings, traditions, insights and wisdom are maintained. Without heterodoxy we would be throwing away centuries of progress and combined intellect. Would it be Luciferian to say "nah, this is useless!" and throw out centuries of scientific discovery and try to discover all that totally by ourselves?

No, it wouldn't IMO it would be fruitless since no one person could ever discover a fraction of science uncovered in the centuries since the scientific method was developed. So why would anything be different with heterodoxy? It's tradition for a reason.

Be skeptical of that tradition all you want, that's encouraged and Luciferian. The Tibetan Buddhists for example (some of which are RHP and some LHP) do this all the time debating ideas around for thousands of years. But at no point did they throw it out or say it's bad, they simply argued for different viewpoints that exist in different heterodoxies and orthodoxies virtually all of which have been around for centuries. After all there is "nothing", if very little "new under the sun" as the saying goes. However a skeptic will accept that with good evidence and reasoning, and it's been shown time and time again that a there are many heterodox traditions that have stood the test of time and still hold up to modern scrutiny of logic, reason and knowledge.

EDIT:

This is simply my viewpoint and opinion. Please don't take this as me trying to tell others what to do or believe. I feel strongly about it but it wouldn't be my place to dictate what others do. If you find some insight or something worth thinking about in my posts in this topic great, if not, well whatever we are probably not going to offer each other anything then if there isn't any common ground lol

 

[EtuMalku]

It appears that until there is an actual definition of Right / Left and Western Left Hand Path, these debates / discussions will never go much of anywhere.

 

[Kapalika]

There's been a clear definition of Left and Right Hand Path for at least the greater part of a millennium...

EDIT: actually there are LHP traditions going back to around 600 C.E. and earlier, so actually it's more like 1,400+ years. I was just commenting on that that I know for 100% refered to itself as LHP (8th to 12th century CE). The term existed since at least the earliest recorded dates of the Shaiva Kapalikas and then a little later in Tibet the heterodox sects of Tibetan Buddhism.

It's probably older even then, that's just the oldest I'm aware of.

 

[crossfire]

You keep using the word "antinomianism" but why should we care what Christianity thinks?

Antinomianism: Identifying, bringing into consciousness, and critiquing the cultural nomos that lie just below consciousness of any given culture.

Here is the wiki link on "nomos."
Nomos (sociology) - Wikipedia

snippet:
To be most effective, the nomos must be taken for granted. The structure of the world created by human and social activity is treated not as contingent, but as self-evident. 'Whenever the socially established nomos attains the quality of being taken for granted, there occurs a merging of its meanings with what are considered to be the fundamental meanings inherent in the universe.' (1967:24-25). Berger sees this happening in all societies, and while the nomos is expressed in religious terms in 'archaic societies', 'In contemporary society, this archaic cosmization of the social world is likely to take the form of "scientific" propositions about the nature of men rather than the nature of the universe.' (1967:25).​

At least for me also I don't find the Freudian idea useful. It was disproven by psychology later on, it was just his guess. To me to hang on to such outdated and disproven concepts is not in keeping with Luciferian values.

I also find the idea that heterodoxy as being negative laughable since it's heterodoxy by which teachings, traditions, insights and wisdom are maintained. Without heterodoxy we would be throwing away centuries of progress and combined intellect. Would it be Luciferian to say "nah, this is useless!" and throw out centuries of scientific discovery and try to discover all that totally by ourselves?

I didn't say heterodoxy is useless, because it does have its uses. I said that the practice of heterodoxy can tend to dull your intellect and discernment, so care must be taken when using it.

No, it wouldn't IMO it would be fruitless since no one person could ever discover a fraction of science uncovered in the centuries since the scientific method was developed. So why would anything be different with heterodoxy? It's tradition for a reason.

I never said it was fruitless. I said that it tends towards dulling the intellect and discernment. That is not fruitless.

Be skeptical of that tradition all you want, that's encouraged and Luciferian. The Tibetan Buddhists for example (some of which are RHP and some LHP) do this all the time debating ideas around for thousands of years. But at no point did they throw it out or say it's bad, they simply argued for different viewpoints that exist in different heterodoxies and orthodoxies virtually all of which have been around for centuries. After all there is "nothing", if very little "new under the sun" as the saying goes. However a skeptic will accept that with good evidence and reasoning, and it's been shown time and time again that a there are many heterodox traditions that have stood the test of time and still hold up to modern scrutiny of logic, reason and knowledge.

Oh believe me, I've been observing. My opinions are based on my observations. Your mileage may vary.