11 posts shown.
Ryan Wilson2 said:It is, of course, quite convenient to fabricate justifications whenever one finds themselves incapable of facing the truth. One can always retreat behind the pretentious label of being "eclectic" to mask a simple refusal to accept reality.
Quentin:| Easier for whom, exactly? You speak as if you’re discussing some abstract, generic individual standing on a conveyor belt, making a purely rational decision that is somehow deemed "easier." Is this supposed ease universal? Is it easier for everyone involved, or just for the theoretical model you've constructed in your head? |
Man is, by his very nature, a social animal. This isn't some vague philosophical abstraction or a mere poetic sentiment; it is an established scientific fact.
Quentin:| It all comes down to the specific circumstances, the underlying math, and the available alternatives. What you’re proposing is a difficult path, certainly, but by no means an impossible one. Even that sweeping generalization about "all" women fails to account for reality; they aren't some monolithic group. You have those religious, ultra-conservative types where life would be an absolute nightmare, and then you have the modern, nominal believers—those de facto atheists who prioritize their own pleasure, maintain careers outside of the kitchen and the bedroom, and essentially just live their lives without making it everyone else's problem. |
It is nearly impossible. Especially when you actually know exactly what you are looking for.
At the end of the day, you're looking at two different targets: the pursuit of truth versus the preservation of the ego. Some people are willing to tear down their own pride to find what's real, while others will sacrifice the truth just to keep their ego intact.
Quentin:
| Man is a social animal. That isn't some abstract theory; it’s a fundamental scientific fact. |
The thing about any objective fact is that you can approach it from a dozen different angles—including this one. For instance, even regarding that Aristotelian idea, Nietzsche famously added his own perspective: that outside of society, there is nothing left but a god or a beast.
Joseph Bailey41 said:Besides, you're pretty much disqualifying yourself as a serious conversationalist here. 👏
Since I've been permanently cleared of all charges, I guess I'll just have to learn how to live with that stain on my reputation. ☕
Joseph Bailey41 said:I'm with you on that. If you're going to quote someone, it's just common courtesy to cite your source.
That might be true, but it isn't practical. I intentionally leave out references to keep the scope of the conversation tight and minimize any room for red herrings.
darkraven said:What do you mean "anonymous"? That user Andrew White6 posted it as his own damn words. Did you mention later that you just translated and ripped it straight from that book?
And obviously, it's always better when someone actually uses their own voice and writes something original—you know, by using their brain for a second. It's called having an individuality. Something that's clearly not a concept LHP understands.
I’m sorry to disappoint you if you were hoping my forum posts would be presented in the format of an academic paper.
If you notice I haven't cited a source somewhere, it’s because I don't want you to know it. If you do manage to track it down, consider it a reward for your own effort—much like a diligent research assistant hunting down footnotes.
Chris Williams said:Thanks for the heads-up. 🙂
I don't really have the energy to engage with anything that has the Church of Satan in the title, whether it's their take on spiritual left versus right, who thinks Lucifer is actually good, or if hoarding wealth is cool and inequality is just natural...
Please, let's not go there. It’s truly a tragedy when someone with such a vast breadth of knowledge loses the drive to explore subjects they clearly understand so deeply. That said, having a mental block isn't a valid excuse for spreading misinformation. The author isn't a member or even a follower of CoS, nor is that the sole focus of the book. CoS is merely addressed in one specific chapter as part of a larger look at various Left Hand Path practices.
darkraven said:From here:
That bolded part—you know, the bit about how "the path of the left hand is essentially the path of non-identity and non-unity with the objective universe"—is a straight-up, word-for-word rip-off from this book. Seriously, it's practically the introduction to the whole topic.
https://nationalsatanist.files.wordp..._hand_path.pdf
If anyone thinks I'm just messing around, go ahead and read the first chapter yourselves.
We're looking at a potential case of blatant plagiarism here, or at the very least, a massive lack of creativity and pure laziness.
You really should have included the word "potential" there, because let’s be honest—it's obvious to you that an anonymous quote doesn't count as plagiarism.
darkraven said:From here:
That bolded part—you know, the bit about how "the path of the left hand is essentially the path of non-identity and non-unity with the objective universe"—is a straight-up, word-for-word rip-off from this book. Seriously, it's practically the introduction to the whole topic.
https://nationalsatanist.files.wordp..._hand_path.pdf
If anyone thinks I'm just messing around, go ahead and read the first chapter yourselves.
We're looking at a potential case of blatant plagiarism here, or at the very least, a massive lack of creativity and pure laziness.
If you’re sitting there expecting people to just whip up custom essays for you online without paying a dime, then you’re nothing more than a freeloader.
Frank Allen70 said:Let’s clear the air here, because I see a lot of people throwing around all sorts of theories. I’m going to use certain concepts that I hope are broad enough to be easily grasped.
The path of the left hand is the path of materialism.
The path of the right hand is the path of spirituality.
A materialist will eventually realize that even after they have "sold their soul to the devil," they still possess a sense of self—allowing them to translate all those material events into a different form, thereby catching the thread of spirituality and constructing their own reality.
On the other hand, a spiritual seeker will come to view their creative capacity as their sole function. Yet, at some point, they too must "sell their soul to the devil"—in the sense that they must find the courage to actually start living that material life they desire, rather than constantly renouncing it in favor of mere mental projections.
Both paths are distinct, yet both lead in the same direction, expressed by the koan: "God's right hand knows not what the left hand is doing." One hand represents power (regardless of how much an ascetic or a non-materialist might try to flatter themselves), but together, the two hands represent potential—the potential to realize oneself without movement, to know the self without a mirror. Both hands are simply two sides of the same mirror. In fact, there is no mirror at all. Anyone who fails to transcend this paradox through direct experience will be destroyed by the very power that initially seemed so uniquely theirs. Whether it is a slow decline or a sudden end, destruction is inevitable because such a person serves no purpose, and nature loves to recycle—because only nature holds true power. A human being can merely be a part of it; to imagine one could rule over it is simply foolish. In nature, there is no government and no regulation. There is only choice and intention. Everything else is simply whatever nature dictates. Every act of defiance carries its own consequence—one must weigh every action carefully and never dismiss either hand.
To understand both paths is to be enlightened. To walk both paths is to truly live. This isn't something you grasp through reading; it is something realized only through experience. Those who are not enlightened will never be able to recognize one who is. To the blind, both the light and the darkness are the same—to a blind man, nothing possesses brilliance. What I am writing here is just one description among many. The goal of all such descriptions is to halt division—both internal and external.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts at play. Both terms actually refer to different spiritual trajectories. The terms "Right-Hand Path" (or *dakshinachra*) and "Left-Hand Path" (*vamachakra*) are borrowed from esoteric—meaning by definition non-materialistic and otherworldly—tantric doctrines within Hinduism. The first materialist philosopher in India was Charvaka (around 600 BCE), and he has nothing to do with this development, neither in origin nor in actual meaning.
So, what are we really talking about? According to established tantric beliefs, there is a natural flow of universal cosmic force through the human body from left to right, which mirrors the north-to-south flow of cosmic energy. When the human body is oriented toward the east—with the left hand facing north and the right facing south—it was believed the body was in harmony with the natural flow of the universe. This is the "Right-Hand Path," or *dakshinacha*—the path of alignment with the cosmic order. The reverse orientation is the "Left-Hand Path," or *vamachara*, an antinomian practice believed to run contrary to nature and the cosmic law. It’s essentially a rebellion against the divinely ordained order, which requires a much greater strength of will. Those who choose to "go against the current" articulate themselves more fully and individualize themselves against their surroundings, allowing for greater independence and freedom.
In short, the key distinction between these two paths is the difference between orthodoxy and heterodoxy: between submitting to a "higher power" and resisting it; between merging harmoniously with one's environment and asserting one's own individuality.
A materialist will eventually realize that even after they have "sold their soul to the devil," they still possess a self—allowing them to translate all material events into another form, thereby catching the thread of spirituality and constructing their own world.
Aside from the fact that the Left-Hand Path predates the Judeo-Christian concept of the devil, what you're describing is actually impossible within that specific practice. In a spiritual sense, the "devil"—or the antinomian element found in the Judeo-Christian tradition—is actually the practitioner of the Left-Hand Path themselves. Therefore, "selling one's soul to the devil" would simply mean selling oneself to oneself (the supreme deity of the Left-Hand Path).
...both paths lead in the same direction...
Are the direction of union with God in eternity and the direction of separation in eternity heading the same way? Not even orthodox faiths would claim that. The path toward heaven—that is, toward harmonious unity with God—and the path toward hell—eternal separation from God—are not moving in the same direction. If you try to "walk both paths," you aren't going anywhere (which, according to orthodox beliefs, means you're headed straight to hell/separation from God).
"Quote:"
casualtiger2 As expressed by Benjamin Taylor6:
At its core, quantum physics demonstrates that once you reach a certain level of the physical world, precise measurements and absolute predictability simply become impossible.
Why do people tend to conflate "nature" with "God"? It’s an interesting question—why is there this persistent tendency to frame God as being subordinate to, or even synonymous with, the objective universe? |
When you take a deep dive into how Orthodox views of God and divine law are structured, it becomes impossible to ignore the striking parallels between those spiritual principles and the laws of nature—whether you're looking at organic growth or mechanical systems. My intention here isn't to dismiss the massive, well-known divide between scientific inquiry and religious faith. Rather, I want to suggest that both perspectives actually stem from the same fundamental source: a pursuit of objective truth.
"Quote:"
| Where exactly are you getting the idea that the subjective experience isn't subject to the laws of nature? I can't help but wonder why you feel there’s some kind of "supernatural" force at play there. |
If you look at things from an empirical standpoint, there’s a clear distinction between the world around us and the products of the human mind. You won't find pyramids, sprawling railway networks, or even a basic Stone Age hand axe just lying around in the wild. Nature follows its own set of rules—an apple falls from a tree because gravity demands it—but in the human mind, nothing is quite that predictable. Ideas don't just fall into place; they are constructed.
"Quote:"
The foundation of any society ultimately dictates its superstructure. It’s a fundamental principle: the underlying economic and social structures shape everything else—our laws, our culture, and even our shared values.
Karl Marx |
Even if we take this premise as a given, we have to acknowledge that the various iterations of the USSR, China, and those other real-socialist regimes were far from identical. Their differences are telling, aren't they? It really makes you wonder: doesn't this point toward the existence of a distinct subjectivity within the bases themselves?
"Quote:"
| The idea that the individual self is somehow canceled out during union with the Divine is a pretty controversial claim—especially when you consider that the "ego" isn't actually the same thing as the "individual self," as we discussed earlier. |
When we talk about "harmonization," what we’re really talking about is a form of annihilation. It’s that process where you lose everything that makes you unique in relation to the absolute.
"Quote:"
| Does merging with God simply turn us into nothing more than "well-adjusted members of the collective"? It’s an interesting way to frame it—as if spiritual transcendence is just a fancy term for becoming perfectly socialized, compliant citizens who fit seamlessly into the crowd. |
In atheist collectivism, we’re really just looking at a different kind of collective fetish. They swap out deities for "historical necessity," making it the new god of communism. Lacan and Žižek actually touched on this, identifying it as the "Big Other." Being pedantic about the terminology won't change the underlying reality; subjectivity remains subjective, and objectivity remains objective, no matter what label you decide to slap on it.
There is simply no way to truly isolate yourself from the objective universe. It’s an illusion to suggest that a "path toward isolating consciousness within an objective universe" actually exists—as if one could enter a state of forced psychological solitude to refine their soul or psyche to some higher level of perfection. It just isn't possible.
The catch here is that this idea of an "eternal separation"—the notion of an immortal, independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe—simply can't hold up without merging back into what we call "God," which, in your view, is just the objective universe itself.
I hold a view that is diametrically opposed to yours. We are all essentially "condemned" to ourselves; we are forced to perceive the world strictly through our own eyes and walk using our own two feet. Anyone who believes they aren't their own center of the universe, or thinks they can think with someone else's brain or walk with someone else's legs, is simply kidding themselves.
In my eyes, any attempt at that kind of psychological self-centeredness or extreme detachment can only lead to one of two things: deep depression or, at best, a massive sense of inflated ego.
And euphoria? Of course, it can lead to that too.
Euphoria and depression—pleasure and pain—that is our fundamental lot while we are alive, because we aren't plants or inanimate objects.
@Baphomet You can't play both sides of the fence. In my eyes, that’s just pure hypocrisy.
Now, I don't think you should view hypocrisy—or a lack of total sincerity—as a fatal flaw. For someone practicing LHP, being blinded by counterproductive pride is actually a far more dangerous pitfall than being a bit hypocritical.
The way I see it, the right-wing path is easier because you're just conforming to society.
Easier for whom, though? You're talking as if you're describing some abstract, generic guy on an assembly line making a purely rational calculation about what's "easier." Is it actually easier for *everyone*?
No one following LHP can stay with a woman whose entire purpose in life is centered on having children. And sorry, but that’s basically almost all of them.
It really comes down to the specific circumstances, the math involved, and what other options are on the table. What you're saying is difficult, sure, but it isn't impossible. Even those women aren't a monolith. You have the ultra-religious conservatives where life would be a nightmare, but then you also have the modern, "devout" types (who are effectively atheists) who are mostly just looking for pleasure, have careers outside the home and bedroom, and generally just "live and let live."
hiddenpuma75 said:Could you be a bit more specific?
For instance, throughout my own life, I've walked both paths—left and right—even if, at the time, I didn't consciously realize I was navigating them that way. I just explored everything...
It wasn't until much later that I realized there was a "theoretical distinction" between the two, and that certain practices, actions, and ideas of mine were firmly on the "Left-Hand Path," while others aligned with the "Right-Hand Path."
What really stands out to me in your post is your comment about it being an "incredibly difficult path..."
Because, from where I'm sitting, there shouldn't be a distinction in difficulty; any spiritual path should be challenging by its very nature.
Am I missing something here? It feels like you might be implying that the "Right-Hand Path" is inherently easier than the "Left-Hand Path" by default.
I agree. To me, LHP feels less like a choice you make—like deciding, "Okay, I'm officially on this path now" or "I'll study this doctrine and follow it strictly"—and more like something you stumble into or recognize within yourself through the process of living.
hiddenpuma75 said:Could we please get a bit more specific here?
Give me an example.
Is meditation considered LHP or RHP?
The RHP famous Michael Aquino http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthr.../view/0/page/1
as a pure LHPa, claims he’s never meditated because he finds it boring. He gave it a shot and quickly moved on. (The link won't automatically show you his posts like it does for me since I'm logged in, but with a little digging, you can find his insights on just about everything. Literally. He's written on everything from comic books and cars to his favorite music, to deep explanations of consciousness and what happens when we leave this physical body... It's incredibly instructive and valuable stuff coming from a top LHPa exponent 👍)
On the other hand, Buddha teaches that without meditation, nothing can truly be realized. Without achieving self-realization through meditation, all the LHP and RHP talk is basically like a chicken sitting in an egg wondering what the world looks like outside the shell.
Of course, for an LHP-ist, Buddha is just RHP, so where does that leave us? 🤷
Unfortunately, I can't get much more specific because the "path" isn't a one-size-fits-all concept. It would be misleading to say it definitely is or definitely isn't, because for one person, meditation might be their entire "path," while for someone else, it could be something else entirely.
The famous Michael Aquino http://www.the600club.com/dir/ubbthr.../view/0/page/1
...claims that he never meditated because he found it boring .He tried it, but gave up pretty quickly...
My own experience with meditation attempts was actually quite similar, especially when trying those traditional Buddhist-style sessions in a seated Zazen posture. I eventually realized that I respond much better to a totally informal, highly personalized version of "Zen" or introspection—something more peripatetic and spontaneous that happens during mundane, everyday activities...
Joseph Bailey41 said:I honestly think that behind every spiritual guru pretending they’re part of some secret wolf pack or whatever, there’s just a sweet little puppy hiding inside. Seriously. I used to have this online pen pal who I’d tell fairy tales to, and in return, he’d go on and on about all these shady, secret organizations he was involved with. He’d talk about trapezoids, tiles, Egyptian deities, dragons—you name it. He was actually a pretty nice guy, an American man in his sixties. Every now and then, I had to throw a little curveball at him just to keep things interesting, mostly because I was getting bored. 🤣
That’s why I never figured out how to reach immortality through total isolation. Though, now that I think about it, that actually sounds like a pretty cool option... maybe. Then again, I’d probably get bored of it after 900 years, tops.
Is it really everyone? Does this whole individualistic, subjective doctrine pull people in simply because they all feel exactly the same?
I'm being completely serious here. I once had this online correspondent who I’d just spin fairy tales to, and in return, he’d spend all his time regaling me with stories about all these shadowy, dangerous organizations he used to run around with.
Joining typically dangerous or obscure organizations seems to be the standard operating procedure for the "spiritual right." In reality, it’s often the only way they feel they can authentically walk that path.
"Quote:"
| It’s all just a bunch of trapezoids, floor tiles, Egyptian deities, dragons, and whatnot. |
Anti-nominalism tends to manifest in all sorts of different ways, really shifting based on the individual practitioner and whatever specific needs they're facing in any given moment.
He’s a sweet guy, an American man in his sixties. I used to mess with him every once in a while just to keep him on his toes, but honestly, I eventually just got bored of it. 🤣
What one person considers to be LHP doesn't necessarily mean it holds that same label for everyone else.
I still haven't quite cracked the code on how one actually achieves immortality through self-isolation. It sounds like an intriguing prospect on paper... maybe. But honestly? I think even that would start to feel pretty repetitive after about 900 years, tops.
The idea of relative or subjective immortality feels like a much more grounded goal than the afterlife promised by traditional religions—especially when you take those literal interpretations, like the concept of a "physical resurrection," at face value. To me, it all comes down to one fundamental distinction: objective time and our internal perception of time are two entirely different beasts.
We can think of the totality of existence—everything known and everything still waiting to be discovered—as being composed of two distinct parts: the objective universe and the subjective universe.
The objective universe represents the natural order, the fundamental laws that govern our world. It is essentially a combination of mechanical and organic systems ruled by predictable patterns. You could call this objective reality "Nature," or even "God" within the context of Judeo-Christian traditions. This is because both hard sciences and orthodox theology operate on a similar premise: that the laws governing the objective universe can either be understood through rational measurement and description, or grasped through "divine revelation." While theologians would likely push back and insist on a sharp distinction between the "Creator" and the "creation," a closer look suggests that what mainstream religions call "God" is actually functionally identical to what they call "creation"—that is, the natural, organic, and mechanical laws of the cosmos itself.
On the other hand, the subjective universe is the "world" experienced by every sentient being. There are as many subjective universes as there are conscious beings, each acting as an individual manifestation of awareness within the greater whole. Every perception we have of the objective universe is merely indirect information, because that data must first pass through the filter of the subjective universe. Interestingly, the subjective realm doesn't seem bound by the same rigid mechanical or organic laws that govern the objective side. This is the primary dividing line between the two. The subjective universe possesses the capacity for "unnatural" action; it isn't strictly confined to the three dimensions and five senses that define the physical world. It’s also important to clarify that this distinction isn't about "right versus wrong" or "accuracy versus inaccuracy," as people often imply in casual conversation. In fact, the subjective universe is capable of far more precise and diverse operations than the objective one—just look at how you are currently reading and processing this text using the unique faculties of your own subjective mind. To put it in simple grammatical terms: you, the reader, are the subject, and the text you are consuming is the object.
Because the subjective universe isn't tethered to the laws of nature, it holds a massive spectrum of possibilities, ranging from near-perfect precision to total illusion. At the very heart of this "unnatural" subjective realm lies human consciousness—the soul, or the "I." We see evidence of this non-natural aspect of the soul in humanity's innate drive to impose artificial structures upon the objective world. Whether it’s building the Pyramids, composing poetry, or establishing complex political institutions, we are constantly creating things that are, by definition, set apart from the natural world. Animals, even those with highly sophisticated social structures, are entirely bound by their biology and the dictates of nature. A wolf pack's social order remains fundamentally the same whether it exists in the forests of Maine or somewhere else entirely, thousands of years ago or today. But you will never find two human institutions that are perfectly identical. That is because anything birthed by the subjective universe—whether by an individual or a collective—is defined by variability. As far as we know, humans are the only species with this characteristic.
This brings us to the central question: how should a conscious, free soul interact with the objective universe?
The "Right-Hand Path" approach boils down to a single idea: the subjective universe must harmonize itself with the totality of the objective universe, viewed as God or Nature. From this perspective, humanity's task is to seek out the knowledge of these laws and submit to them, seeking unity or an alliance with the objective order. The Right-Hand Path is a journey toward merging with universal reality. When this union is fully realized, the individual "ego" is surrendered, and the person becomes one with the divine or cosmic order. In this state of heaven—or the state of being/non-being found in Nirvana—the ego ceases to exist, which is precisely the ultimate goal of all mainstream Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.
The "left-hand path" represents a heterodox journey. It views the state of humanity through a very specific lens—one that acknowledges the deep-seated, fundamental hunger within every human being to be a free, empowered, and independent agent within their own reality. To those on this path, both the pleasures and the pains that come with being an independent entity are embraced as hallmarks of the highest and most noble human destiny, especially since such self-governing existence has historically been viewed as something divine.
Just as most people spend their ordinary, day-to-day lives chasing things that will grant them more knowledge, power, freedom, autonomy, and social standing within their world, those who practice the spiritual "left-hand path" logically extend those same ambitions to their inner selves. They do this without giving a second thought to the warnings from the "right-hand path," which labels such spiritual behavior as "evil" and insists that one should instead follow "the plan" (set by God and nature) to become a well-adjusted, conforming member of the collective.
In essence, the left-hand path is a path of inequality and non-conformity with the objective universe. It is about isolating consciousness within the objective cosmos, creating a state of self-imposed psychological solitude where the practitioner can refine their soul or psyche to more perfected levels. In this framework, the objective universe is forced to harmonize with the individual's will, rather than the other way around. While the right-hand path is theocentric (or at least focused on an external authority), the left-hand path is "psyche-centric"—it is ego-centric, centered entirely on the soul. Although definitions of the self, ego, or soul may vary within this tradition, the individual remains the undisputed epicenter. The ultimate goal is the eternal separation of the individual's intelligence from the objective universe, achieving a state of immortal, independent self-awareness that exists parallel to the cosmos and interacts with it only by its own volition.