'western' and 'eastern' LHP

[Onyx]

But it would seem that in 2012 a book was written using a newer definition of Left Hand Path..

The link in the OP is bad, and I ended up suggesting the same book. I believe this is the correct link:
https://jet.com/product/Lords-of-the-Left-Hand-Path/f958e5d9a6aa4d9abf3607dd19217c50

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I'm pretty sure myself and Mandi clearly listed the defining points between Eastern and Western Left Hand Paths . . . where are you confused?

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.
5. In 1992 the book "Lords of the Left Hand Path" was written using a much newer definition of the term making a fifth designation.

All of these differ, if only slightly in some cases, but enough to designate them differently from one another
Obviously you disagree . . . so, what makes them all the same thing to you?

Well, they aren't all the same thing, they are very different things. Different, wholly unrelated things.

2 is a misunderstanding of 1

3 isn't what made Anton's thing 'LHP, it was simply byproduct of such. You mistake the form for the essence.

4..not arguing people still do 'LHP in the context of Western society, yours truly included.

5 is, as you yourself stated, used in a totally different context than you are using it.

Still waiting for something cogent on the matter beyond unsupported assertions.

 

[Kapalika]

I'm pretty sure myself and Mandi clearly listed the defining points between Eastern and Western Left Hand Paths . . . where are you confused?

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.
5. In 1992 the book "Lords of the Left Hand Path" was written using a much newer definition of the term making a fifth designation.

All of these differ, if only slightly in some cases, but enough to designate them differently from one another
Obviously you disagree . . . so, what makes them all the same thing to you?

Woah woah woah now I never agreed that these were "defining" points separating 'eastern' and 'western' LHP just that those were various contextual usages of the term. I did later say that people might divide it between eastern and western and I can see why they might do that, but I personally don't agree with the distinction even if I can understand why people have it and why they make it.

My opinion is that since 2 through 5, the 'western' LHP usages... all are so diverse... that it doesn't make sense to divide 1 from 2-5 since the differences are not any larger than the differences between all the ones in 2 through 5.

I believe I actually explicitly drew this out in an earlier post where I compared a LHP approach on Jnana yoga to Luciferianism, and then compared LaVeyanism to Luciferianism.

Similarly, there is a world more difference between #2 and #4 than #1 and #4, even though #2 and #4 are both western groups/people using the term.

I' basically agree with @Satans_Serrated_Edge on this topic, however I'm trying to approach it more diplomatically. I want us to have a mutual understanding of the differences in opinion and our reasons for why each of us holds our own position.

This doesn't mean I don't think debate doesn't have it's place on this matter, I just don't think the DIR is the time or place for it. And after a lot of debate I was hoping for more just discussing it without trying to debate one another.

 

[crossfire]

I'm pretty sure myself and Mandi clearly listed the defining points between Eastern and Western Left Hand Paths . . . where are you confused?

1. Original Left Hand Path, usually Tantric, from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
2. Referring to "black magic" or "bad" or failed" practitioners. Used by people like Blavatsky and Crowley.
3. To refer to hedonistic/egotistical philosophies with moral relativism (such as LaVeyan Satanism).
4. Used by western occult groups like the Typhonian Order who used the term in a way pretty close to #1.
5. In 1992 the book "Lords of the Left Hand Path" was written using a much newer definition of the term making a fifth designation.

All of these differ, if only slightly in some cases, but enough to designate them differently from one another
Obviously you disagree . . . so, what makes them all the same thing to you?

Woah woah woah now I never agreed that these were "defining" points separating 'eastern' and 'western' LHP just that those were various contextual usages of the term. I did later say that people might divide it between eastern and western and I can see why they might do that, but I personally don't agree with the distinction even if I can understand why people have it and why they make it.

My opinion is that since 2 through 5, the 'western' LHP usages... all are so diverse... that it doesn't make sense to divide 1 from 2-5 since the differences are not any larger than the differences between all the ones in 2 through 5.

I believe I actually explicitly drew this out in an earlier post where I compared a LHP approach on Jnana yoga to Luciferianism, and then compared LaVeyanism to Luciferianism.

Similarly, there is a world more difference between #2 and #4 than #1 and #4, even though #2 and #4 are both western groups/people using the term.

I' basically agree with @Satans_Serrated_Edge on this topic, however I'm trying to approach it more diplomatically. I want us to have a mutual understanding of the differences in opinion and our reasons for why each of us holds our own position.

This doesn't mean I don't think debate doesn't have it's place on this matter, I just don't think the DIR is the time or place for it. And after a lot of debate I was hoping for more just discussing it without trying to debate one another.

Interestingly, Taoism considers using the Right Hand approach (strong general-yang, rather than the wise counselor-yin on the left) to be considered as last resort/failure, and a cause for mourning.

 

[EtuMalku]

So essentially we are left where we started here?
1 & 5 Eastern and Western Left Hand Path
So, what are the differences?

 

[Mindmaster]

Well, they aren't all the same thing, they are very different things. Different, wholly unrelated things.

2 is a misunderstanding of 1

3 isn't what made Anton's thing 'LHP, it was simply byproduct of such. You mistake the form for the essence.

4..not arguing people still do 'LHP in the context of Western society, yours truly included.

5 is, as you yourself stated, used in a totally different context than you are using it.

Still waiting for something cogent on the matter beyond unsupported assertions.

I basically agree with what you've stated here, and I sort of naturally echo your ideas on the matter.

I keep wondering ultimately what all the hub-bub is as the LHP is very easy to describe; ultimately, it is a libertine and libertarian (hence the connections to objectivism) path in the west. (Oh look, I defined it!) It isn't a spiritual thing so much as a lifestyle, whereas in the east I feel the difference is simply that it is a spiritual approach more than anything. People try to bridge these things together and it's apples and oranges. The two ideas are not derived, similar, or combinable in a real sense. If you really follow the eastern LHP you are going to be getting to trappings, dogmas, and other beliefs that will derail you from the western. Conversely, if you were to live to the ideals of the westernized LHP you are going to be stomping all over the particulars of the belief systems of the east. There is just no way the things can mesh, be compatible, or whatever in the truest sense. I just ignore Blavatsky, Crowley, and the rest of those jokers as far as the definitions as they really never displayed any understanding of what seems so brutally simple to me.

That being said, very little has to be done to be on the western LHP and I feel that is the cause of most of these extended discussions. Most of the attempts I've seen on the forum attempt to pump each person's confirmation bias more than anything. The notion that their particular bullet list of weasel words is, in fact, more important than any other when in reality my simple two-word definition is enough. It allows for, and also compensates for the minor differences through tolerance of them and evades establishing infernal mandates. Once you start getting into the business of defining what others should think or be doing you are on that slippery slope that takes you right off of the mountain. You cannot follow a path of philosophical freedom while carrying the whip that denies others the same.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

So essentially we are left where we started here?
1 & 5 Eastern and Western Left Hand Path
So, what are the differences?

One is 'LHP, as has been defined like, forever, the other is a misappropriation of terminology.

'LHP is a thing you do, let's liken it to tennis. You can innovate new ways to swing, new strategies as to body placement, ball placement, racket grip, new sorts of rackets, better tennis shoes, etc.

Yet under no circumstances have you invented a new style of tennis if you are in fact kicking a ball around a field.

 

[EtuMalku]

One is 'LHP, as has been defined like, forever, the other is a misappropriation of terminology.

'LHP is a thing you do, let's liken it to tennis. You can innovate new ways to swing, new strategies as to body placement, ball placement, racket grip, new sorts of rackets, better tennis shoes, etc.

Yet under no circumstances have you invented a new style of tennis if you are in fact kicking a ball around a field.

Then by your definition how is Satanism, Luciferianism, Setian, and the other misappropriated practices not simply one more Sect of Hinduism?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Sigh.

Hello, wall.

 

[EtuMalku]

Sigh.

Hello, wall.

Is that an answer?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hinduism is soil, a form, a context. It isn't the thing itself, merely where the thing was born.

The effort of dispelling dualities through approaching and confronting ones 'nastika' isn't directly married to Hinduism, in fact, it can fit into near any container.

 

[EtuMalku]

Then your definition of LHP is "dispelling dualities through approaching and confronting ones 'nastika" ?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There are right and left approaches to Satanism, diabolism, budhism, Hinduism, even Christianity. Oddly enough I've yet to see a left approach to luciferianism, although Ford did dabble his toe in there somewhat.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Then your definition of LHP is "dispelling dualities through approaching and confronting ones 'nastika" ?

Pretty much, in a nutshell. It's not my definition though, I can't take credit for defining something that has been defined for a millennia.

Of course, there is more to it than can fit into one nutshell, but ya.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

One is 'LHP, as has been defined like, forever, the other is a misappropriation of terminology.

'LHP is a thing you do, let's liken it to tennis. You can innovate new ways to swing, new strategies as to body placement, ball placement, racket grip, new sorts of rackets, better tennis shoes, etc.

Yet under no circumstances have you invented a new style of tennis if you are in fact kicking a ball around a field.

A better comparison might be actually playing tennis, feeling the ball hit the racket, diving for a save, actually feeling and experiencing tennis intimately, contrasted with reading about tennis, swinging a racket in the air,sniffing some tennis shoes, and then meditating in the middle of a court.

 

[Onyx]

I found this post interesting:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-is-setianism.102700/#post-2133790

What do you guys think?

 

[EtuMalku]

Seems like SSE is wrong, at least according to that article

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Seems like SSE is wrong, at least according to that article

Actually, that guy(the author of linked article) is saying essentially exactly the same thing I am.

That guy gets it.

 

[EtuMalku]

Actually, that guy(the author of linked article) is saying essentially exactly the same thing I am.

That guy gets it.

I give up

 

[EtuMalku]

Then would you say both are simply different means to the same end?