Jump to content


* * - - - 2 votes

On Why I Want To Study The Lhp And Not The Right


47 replies to this topic

#41 RoseRed

    Venerable Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • Locationon the edge of civilization

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:14 PM

It's not really about worshiping Satan. It's more about humanism and worshiping the self.

Edited by RoseRed, 05 December 2013 - 03:14 PM.

When my wings get tired I grab my broom.

#42 ChaosTech

    Venerable Member

  • Gold Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:25 PM

We all have a left and right hand and use both. :P


For nearly 20 years I meditated on and studied that which has no name, but is absolute, infinite, beyond both small and large. Finally one day I realized the limits of my sentient consciousness. It has all power over whether we are it or dual. There is no choice of the nondual, for choice is dual. Just be, live, do what you will, with love and wisdom. As Hermes said, in a time yet unborn, all shall be one, and one shall be all. True enlightenment has nothing to do with attainment. It's an inner peace, that there is nothing to be done, I call it surrender to the Spirit.

#43 Nameless

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • 252 posts

Posted 14 December 2013 - 06:57 PM

View PostThe Stalking Hyena, on 30 November 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Here's a thought, though not so much as a criticism as a philosophical point:
Given what Brennan said, Nothing does not exist. You can neither escape from it or merge with it and there can't be any paths leading to it because it is "nothing". If this is considered, how can there be a "path" that leads to what does not exist?
Now, another question arises, how in the HELL does one find a use for that in life if there was never any use for it to begin with? At the same time, how can one oppose a non-existent concept (which ironically does exist by virtue of it being a concept?)?
And another thing, where did you get the idea that RHP leads to the Ain Soph as you define it? This begs further clarification of what you mean by said path, assuming it really is a path and not a projection developed in the philosophy of your path (and theirs!) in order to define itself in relation to an what it opposes.

But what do you mean by wisdom? Surely "general wisdom" can't apply, particularly since you are rejecting one way in favor of another. That is, you cannot be wise about something you think you know - you must have some degree of real experience and this not just a one time thing but a succession exposures.
Is the ego an isolated thing that can sufficiently be boosted or even really destroyed? Isn't it like a construct developed from things like sensation, perspective, location in time? In the process of boosting, it would seem one would have to find a stable solidity, right? Yet in seeking this stability - which some say the ego is really doing for the sake of the whole organism - isn't one laying one's self open to be destroyed by forces that are percieved, rightly or wrongly, as being stronger than one's self? That is, in finding strength in terms of self value, what happens when that value becomes untenable in the face of opposition? Let's say you are in a situation in which if you do not submit, you are destroyed but if you do submit you get to live. In that situation, how can your principles apply?

I have heard "self diefication" with regards to LHP, but I am forced to wonder at it and question whether this is a given result of your positions. If you became a "certain diety" yourself, wouldn't you expect some kind of worship in order to be a diety (that is, by definition)? Or would you be a "god" without followers? In this case, reflecting back to the original statement regarding the "path of the Ain Soph", of what use is it to become a "god" that is not worshipped, assuming one does not wish to become what one rejects?

On critical thinking, not to be a smart ass, but did you gain any or all of your conceptions from a book or series of books? Do you trust the authors? Or, did you think these things up yourself and define them as being in opposition of an RHP conception you have only vaguely defined with terms like "certain book" and "certain god"? If there is a criticism in this, it is merely to point out that you might have a series of contractions that are based on prejudices and a lack of information. But that could be said of anybody (including me).

My understanding of Darwinian theory is that "fittest" and "strongest" are not synonymous. In fact, some of the strongest creatures on Earth have been slain by microscopic entities that we ourself wipe up everyday with disinfectants. The strong and weak dichotomy is not something that you can fix in place for all time, just in the moment, in context. I could see a discipline of thought based on the notion of "always being strong", yet being strong is not the same as being smart. One thing Nature has proven in her Darwinian ruthlessness is that weak creatures with brains outlast the braun in many cases - but always under the aegis of adaptablity. They say we come from rodents that changed into monkeys.

I am not saying you are confused, BTW - just that there is more to consider and concieve is one is to bravely question one's self for the sake of self knowledge and personal certainty. Of course, you have to look in your heart, even if it stone cold, to find out whether anything you said is worthwile to pursue. I have heard various ranges of description for RHP and LHP, covering extremes of navel gazing in the former case and pure pychotic criminality in the latter. The descriptions you have given seem incomplete unless you wish to define being LHP only in those terms. For me, I am forced to ask if are we talking a characterization of Vama Marga/Vamachara - which I am told is the original "LHP" pre-Blavatsky, or something more akin to the Order of Nine Angles? It probably doesn't matter if we keep those excluded in favor what you are stating, yet I am curious. I guess I should quit being an asshole and ask you where you get your info and how you constructed your path because the goals you seek to fulfill are dependent on the construct, and that is why I think you seek feedback.

I don't expect an answer to any of the above, just hopeful something I said/asked gives at least a little food for thought - not just for you but for me too. Nothing is indestructable.

That wasn't a pun. ;)

Regardie, would state that the ultimate goal for the theurgist was to become one with the deity, to integrate oneself into the ain soph, (this is on the tree of life, the book of his).
By wisdom I mean an understanding of oneself, and understanding of certain areas of the material world (science for example).

One does not discriminately attempt to show his ego at all times, but rather when it is most useful; sun tzu talks about tactical deceit, faking weakness is not bad if it can lead to something greater.
When you state you are your own god, you are not meaning to become like one in theology, but rather to have a mindset where you think of yourself as the only one worthy of praise, that you set a selfish perspective on life, where everything must work towards your aims and not the opposite.
RHP religions make you believe first AND THEN maybe see something, whereas the left hand path as lavey and Ford portray it, talk about asking for answers to everything, stating you wish to know why rather than simply believe, this is the same mindset the scientific method has, and it is quite rooted in me due to my psychological profile.
RHP religions and some magical paths (although I must state that this is not so often seen with magical groups), want you to follow a dogma based upon their worldview, something I´ve never actually tolerated.
And yes I do agree with your perspective on what Darwinism means, I believe knowledge and intelligence to be better skills than brute force, humans are stronger than the rest of the species due to that.

About an understanding of the LHP: Most likely near the order of the 9 angles, but not to the extremes they might take it.



View PostQaexl, on 04 December 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

I'm not sure what Brennan was saying so I'm responding from my point of view.

Nothing inherently exists, and inherently does not exist. Meaning, there is an "origin" (that is not origin) from which existence and non-existence emerges from.

Form, all the things that seem solid and tangible: the trees, the rock, the computer, the website, the forum, sensations of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, emotions of fear, joy, anger, pride, lust, charity, affection ... the thoughts, idealizations, rationales, rationalizations, justifications, thought-forms, personas, personalities, "souls", god-forms -- none of this have inherent existence and emerges from a place-that-is-non-place; all being created and destroyed, passing and arising ceaselessly.

So it is neither a matter of "destroying the ego" or "strengthening the ego", as the ego (in all the senses people ascribe to) is simply another form that arises and will eventually pass and dissolve. The ego is not that special :-)

In all of this, there is awareness. There is an "observer", that experiences all these different forms, in all its different ways. But you cannot define it. The process of defining that which is observing is an attempt to create a form around that observing, and that form itself transient and not-inherently-existing. Any definition, word, label, abstraction or concept that you create to describe, model, or communicate about awareness is never awareness itself, and will also arise and pass, created and destroyed. Awareness "appears" (in the sense that it can be hidden, but it isn't really hidden) whenever one is aware of a form, that is, one experiences the form. The form is itself never real, as it is always transient, but the act of experiencing, that is, the exercise of awareness, is itself always a constant. But the tricky thing is that, as soon as you attribute a constancy into that awareness, you've created a form, which is inherently transient :-)

That's one of the first insights, that is, "wisdom". Wisdom is not experience or knowledge, wisdom is insight of the true nature of forms, of all forms including the form you've created to define "me". You do this by examining, by investigating and observing forms as they arise and pass, and perceive its transient nature.

The second insight comes from when you realize that ... there is only one Observer peeking out through each of the different forms. When two people sit together and observe each forms as they arise and pass, it becomes obvious that we can talk about "point of view" because it is the same Observer that is looking out from different forms. How can that be? Yet you can experience this insight. Things are not as separated as we'd like them to be.

It also has implications, that what you think of as "you", is not really you. How can it be, if your notion of 'self' is merely something transient? Your real "you" is that single Observer that is experiencing all things, all beings, in all the times, in all the places.

That leads to the third insight. That the things you crave for and desire for, are at its deepest level, seeking recognition of that Observer. Yet at the same time, there are things we avoid, and are frightened of, yet those things, are also the same Observer. When awareness becomes fixated and attached to the objects of cravings (that are transient) and avoids and denies the objects of aversion, it "forgets" it's nature of Observer. This is fundamental, or existential suffering, that weird, subtle, persistent nagging feeling of dissatisfaction you feel, no matter what you do, or what you experience.

Love is the experience of being and knowing you are connected, that the differences you see are artifacts of transient forms (no matter how solid they seem), that what separates you from others is the very thing that separates you from recognizing your true nature and generates existential misery. As humans, it is love we seek and crave for, though we often confuse it with romance, affection, attachments, and lust.

In the LHP, it isn't about strengthening the ego. It's about testing this assertion that your true nature is this singular Observer, no matter how "extreme" the experience. It's easy to test this assertion when you're in an ashram or a monastery, when you're sitting on the cushion and deliberately peel away your desires and aversions. But can you recognize this true nature when you're deliberately drinking past the point of alcohol poisoning? Can you recognize this true nature when you're sitting in a smashan, watching human bodies coming in to be cremated every day? Can you recognize this true nature when you're running around butt naked? Can you recognize this true nature while you are starving to death? Can you recognize this true nature when you've summoned a swarm of hungry ghosts to eat your body and your soul? Can you recognize this true nature when you're bathing in your own excrement and eating your own shit?

Without first doing the preliminary ascetic practices to attain those insights, to recognize and have faith in your fundamental nature, it is easy to think that LHP is a way to exalt your desires and do away with the things you don't want. When you do, you are reinforcing the attachments to these transient forms, binding you more and more tightly to the wheel of karma. And the gods will let you do this, let you reinforce your attachments and become more miserable until your existential misery is screaming, "enough! enough! oh God, I've had enough!" Some beings require a tremendous amount of misery before they learn. In other words: this too is also a path :-)

It's like what Nyald said in a different thread, what you'll hear from a lot of folks: wherever you go, there you are. East or west, right or left, take a step in any direction, and you'll eventually find your way home :-D

Namaste
This is quite interesting, may I ask where did you take the definition of the LHP from? Reading the source would be quite interesting.

View PostRoseRed, on 05 December 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Have you read the Satanic Bible by Lavey? It seems to me that most of your answers can be found there.
http://www.amazon.co...ist+bible.lavey
The satanic bible is in fact the first contact I ever made with the concept of magic.

View PostSuccubusSherry, on 05 December 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yes, that is exactly what I meant, although to be fair that mainly covers theistic Satanism. There are some who claim to be atheistic Satanists, including followers of Lavey who RoseRed mentioned above. I find it hard to believe that it can be truly atheist. For example, one of the leading members of the forum I frequented before this one says she is an atheistic Satanist. One time she posted the picture of Babalon and the Beast from The Ninth Gate and said to me , "Ive made some subtle and telling amendments to this, can you spot them?" I have to say I couldn't spot them, and I wondered how she can be privy to these kind of insights without having any belief in gods or demons- to me that's impossible.
That´s mostly because some state spiritual entities come from the psyche, that is, according to them demons spirits et al are nothing but repressed parts of the mind that can be liberated through rituals.

To Void: There are lifetime goals that cannot be otherwise undertaken correctly with the delay "love" causes, this is why I make an effort to block anything related. Academic goals, magic, are two of them, it will take years before they yield the result I want.

Edited by Nameless, 14 December 2013 - 07:10 PM.

Spoiler

#44 RoseRed

    Venerable Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,520 posts
  • Locationon the edge of civilization

Posted 14 December 2013 - 08:09 PM

Quote

That´s mostly because some state spiritual entities come from the psyche, that is, according to them demons spirits et al are nothing but repressed parts of the mind that can be liberated through rituals.

Yeah, until they run into an actual one.
When my wings get tired I grab my broom.

#45 Qaexl

    ...

  • Board of Directors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,374 posts
  • LocationAZ, US

Posted 16 December 2013 - 12:26 AM

View PostNameless, on 14 December 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

This is quite interesting, may I ask where did you take the definition of the LHP from? Reading the source would be quite interesting.

That was a synthesis of a number of personal experiences, practices, and books. That definition of LHP is defined from from the context of my frame. Where would I begin? I suppose the aspect you are most interested in is probably found in Aghora: the Left Hand of God.

-Qaexl

#46 Barrackubus

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 151 posts
  • LocationSainr Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Posted 28 February 2016 - 01:51 AM

With respect to the OP. I can understand as to why these values are also of great importance.

With some respect given to the blessed are the strong and cursed are the weak.
If viewed at from the perspective of those with some measure of attainment this can be of great value. There are no laws against personal gain so long as it can be willed into reality.
I can also see that there are times it is absolutely ok to do somethings for yourself. Sometimes we can be beat into that I don't deserve it or it might be egotistical type of mindset. A balance can be attained possibly. Sometimes it's ok to use what you know to bring about what you need in order to keep doing what it is you do, you have a right to be.
It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magician is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once he has achieved this he must of course be left entirely in the hands of that Angel, who can be invariably and inevitably relied upon to lead him to the further great step—crossing of the Abyss and the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple. (Magick Without Tears, Ch.83)


Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole law....
93
28) Every man has a right to fulfil his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is t he fault of others if they interfere with him.

#47 Barrackubus

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 151 posts
  • LocationSainr Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Posted 29 February 2016 - 04:04 AM

Just a thought for I've been meditating on this and quite possibly some realities that could possibly exist within the ego destructive behavior.
Being afraid to be egotistical can lead to everything around you taking you over only because of your lack of self indulgence, when and if you may have been just a little egotistical in the interest of say self preservation or some what. Maybe things wouldn't be so difficult, there comes a moment when it's ok and stand up and take over, use our identities and words to shape our reality, isn't as much egotistical as it is also divine, for there is no god but man, why not live off the fruits of the land so to speak, there really isn't any laws forbidding such.
Liber Oz gives very strong argument for preservation at
as giving reasons to have a right to kill someone. How are they not correct and why would not any divine spark left or right sided would not come to your rescue. And correct rather bluntly with the energies that maybe malicious towards you...I don't know...sounds ok...nothing wrong with a little protection from such things and actually see the reality around you respond to such things.

93
211

Edited by Barrackubus, 29 February 2016 - 04:14 AM.

It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magician is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once he has achieved this he must of course be left entirely in the hands of that Angel, who can be invariably and inevitably relied upon to lead him to the further great step—crossing of the Abyss and the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple. (Magick Without Tears, Ch.83)


Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole law....
93
28) Every man has a right to fulfil his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is t he fault of others if they interfere with him.

#48 Next

    Member

  • Banned
  • 68 posts

Posted 05 February 2017 - 09:18 PM

From my observation, LHP isn't something a person really chooses, although in the beginning it might seem like you have a choice.

It's just a matter of, "Is this person Plutonian or not?" (astrologically speaking, looking at the natal chart)

If you are, you're already living the LHP. You were born into it, you will naturally be attracted to it, and you will be successful at it.

Anybody who isn't Plutonian won't be attracted to it in the first place (more likely to be repulsed), or if they get into it it won't last.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users