• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

The Left Hand and Right Hand Path

I don't agree with his definitions of RHP and LHP, but it's typical of new agers to make these mistakes.
 
define 'best' in this context.

why does it have to be one or the other? are they mutually exclusive?

alasdair
 
Well, I wasn't thinking about the occult stuff side of things.

But as I understand it the left-hand path is about developing a stronger ego and working on personal development in general. Especially intellectual development, development of power, personal charm and charisma, and individuality. And pursuing personal freedom by breaking away from conventions. While the right-hand path is more about service and dissolution of the ego, unity, or the classical spiritual path.

Both are said to lead to spiritual enlightenment, but the left-hand path seems mostly centered around wordly life (i.e. rock star philosophy). I didn't learn about it from New Age materials, I also read more serious stuff.
 
why does it have to be one or the other? are they mutually exclusive?

alasdair
 
No, I've done my share of both. It doesn't need to be.

But most who make a conscious choice prefer one or the other. And if you want to go all the way on the spiritual path it seems you end up on the right-hand road (Jesus/Buddha). Although you could say Jesus also had a MASSIVE ego, which he must have developed at some point.
 
Either can lead to enlightenment. It depends on what you're called to do.

There's also the grey path, or the middle path.

They're also just confusing categories TBH.
 
There's actually a tradition behind what came to be called the left-hand path in the West. It was taken from Indian left-hand tantric practices that was brought in by Blavatsky, and then through Crowley. Anyone can read about it.

So in my mind it does have a specific meaning, although I guess it can have all kinds of personal meanings to different people.
 
See, I reckon someone can work on the path of self for the first part of their life, and the path of selflessness for the second.

Many are in need of developing a stronger ego and it's needed in this world. But at some point you can also realise you have a strong enough ego, and it's starting to weigh you down with all the heavy emotions, etc. Freeing yourself from the self makes you lighter and is liberating, but you resist it for as long as possible.

Those who only show interest in the right-hand path might have completed their ego-development in past lives. Otherwise, they're likely to regress, as I believe ego-development/individuation is a process we have to go through too.
 
Occurs to me that we in the Western world are closer to the left-hand path as a society. In traditional Hindu spiritual tradition you're supposed to avoid meat, drugs/alcohol, and promiscuity. While we couldn't be steeped in any more of it.

The same applies to indulging in emotions and sensory pleasure. Our part of the world used to be more Christian and right-hand.
 
It's that decadent life style I guess. You can't even meditate on the side walk in a group without someone laughing at you for it, in the western world. I guess it just makes sense where I live to go more with the LHP. Though, I used to like the whole - Christian ritual where the whole family sits down to have dinner, but at the same time - I never liked having to say the traditional blessings.
Speaking of blessings, maybe the LHP is a blessing for Western society. Total anarchy and destruction until it gets turned around... and made into something that doesn't suck.
 
alasdairm said:
why does it have to be one or the other? are they mutually exclusive?

alasdair
Click to expand...
A good book on the subject would be Lords of the left hand path by Stephen flowers. Basically both paths offer one the ability to attain enlightenment but the difference being on the RHP you would eventually merge, become one, or dissolve back into the divine, where on the LHP you would remain separate and become a sort of god yourself, basically.
 
Ninae said:
Well, I wasn't thinking about the occult stuff side of things.

But as I understand it the left-hand path is about developing a stronger ego and working on personal development in general. Especially intellectual development, development of power, personal charm and charisma, and individuality. And pursuing personal freedom by breaking away from conventions. While the right-hand path is more about service and dissolution of the ego, unity, or the classical spiritual path.
Click to expand...

Dissolution of one's ego is still revolving around personal development. In essence, both paths as you describe them are two sides of the same coin. Different routes to the same thing. I think that is what Alasdair was saying.

For me, I think the ego-dissolution path is most beneficial. I think we are physical beings with apparent physical needs; when we focus overly on these needs, I think we lose sight of a certain freedom that exists within our immaterial minds. I would rather develop a decreased fixation with my life and accomplishments because I feel like these things are transient, whereas true freedom should last 'forever'.
 
Yea, I actually think the self-development path has value too. As in it has value to develop a strong, separate ego, and it's only something you can do on earth. I believe you get to keep what you've achieved in that sense too and it gives you powers in a different way.

But I'm starting to feel that I've developed the ego enough by now. I think I have a strong enough ego/individuality that can influence other people. But all this ego-material weighs you down, too, and you eventually start to feel isolated.

Although I'm happy I've worked on both, as I needed to develop a stronger ego. I was more unity-conscousness to begin with and didn't have such a strong ego. On the other hand, you're certainly HAPPIER when your ego is weaker and you're more at one (or who feels happier on speed than on opiates?)
 
I guess that's the middle-path for you.

No, the middle-path is the one Buddha took, I think. Still serious, just not so extreme in asceticism and charity to others. Jesus was a pretty crazy right-hander, but it worked for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top