Left Hand Path spirituality

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.

Hey man, big shoutout to Andrew White6—welcome back, and honestly, huge props on finally cutting ties! I’m wishing you nothing but the absolute best on this journey of your left leg; may it be wild, intense, and may you summon up an entire legion of demons and minions along the way just for kicks. I hope this eternal isolation brings you some kind of immortality, and seriously, don't be a stranger—drop in whenever you feel like it so we can actually talk. 🙂

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.

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.

It all sounds wonderful, absolutely idyllic... in theory. I know, because I’ve been studying this for over twenty years.

The Left Hand Path is an incredibly grueling journey. You are essentially condemned to solitude unless you happen to stumble upon a partner who actually understands what you're doing (which, in America, is a near impossibility).
In your twenties, this whole concept feels convenient. You go out, you act cool, you have a little job and some decent hair 🤣.

It feels magnificent, right? It’s trendy, it’s profound, and you feel quite proud of being "detached" from society—feeling independent and unique.

But then, suddenly, your forties hit. By then, you’ve truly grasped the reality of things. You’ve experienced that profound detachment from the universe, and as you observe the people around you, you see them moving like puppets on strings. And yet... you haven't had the luck of finding a partner.
You end up on a forum and read people posting about various topics; you want to believe they are being sincere, but... this is a forum. Everyone acts like a genius, living their lives as if they were mere side characters in some video game, offering opinions on the entire cosmos while being as empty as... interstellar space. 😁

Are you truly prepared to dive into life carrying that specific philosophy? 😉

Ryan Wilson2 said:It all sounds wonderful, absolutely idyllic... in theory. I know, because I’ve been studying this for over twenty years.

The Left Hand Path is an incredibly grueling journey. You are essentially condemned to solitude unless you happen to stumble upon a partner who actually understands what you're doing (which, in America, is a near impossibility).
In your twenties, this whole concept feels convenient. You go out, you act cool, you have a little job and some decent hair 🤣.

It feels magnificent, right? It’s trendy, it’s profound, and you feel quite proud of being "detached" from society—feeling independent and unique.

But then, suddenly, your forties hit. By then, you’ve truly grasped the reality of things. You’ve experienced that profound detachment from the universe, and as you observe the people around you, you see them moving like puppets on strings. And yet... you haven't had the luck of finding a partner.
You end up on a forum and read people posting about various topics; you want to believe they are being sincere, but... this is a forum. Everyone acts like a genius, living their lives as if they were mere side characters in some video game, offering opinions on the entire cosmos while being as empty as... interstellar space. 😁

Are you truly prepared to dive into life carrying that specific philosophy? 😉

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.

Andrew White6 said: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.

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? 🤷

Andrew White6 said: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.

I don't have a large enough sample size to make any definitive claims here, so please take this as my personal opinion rather than a final verdict. Let’s say we’re looking at a fairly predictable pattern of personality traits. You can actually see these patterns play out online even more clearly than you do in real life. For instance, just looking at someone's profile picture—like that specific camera angle you used—can be a telltale sign that someone belongs to a certain crowd. Then there are the linguistic cues, those little verbal habits that slip through in private messages, along with other tiny details. From where I'm sitting, it works like this: once you meet one LHP-ist, you feel like you've met them all. They all share this delusion that they are incredibly unique and special; they’re into horror movies, weed, and heavy metal. They carry this narcissistic streak and a totally unfounded belief that they’re some kind of divine gift to women. Meanwhile, women—or at least women like me—just want to get a glimpse into their strictly guarded, obscure, and highly dangerous library. 😁

Andrew White6 said: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.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Honestly, most religions feel pretty lame to me when it comes to the afterlife; they usually end up being this weird mix of oversimplification and total baroque kitsch. I actually think the Tibetan Book of the Dead is alright, though their whole navigation system—sort of like, "Okay, now head toward the yellow light, but steer clear of the red one, then aim for green instead of blue"—isn't exactly intuitive for an American mindset. Shamanism seems to have some better ideas. You essentially "die" a few times throughout your life, wandering through different realms, and occasionally you stumble into being a psychopomp if you happen to be lucky enough to pull that specific gift out of your hat. That way, you’re actually prepared when your time finally comes. (Of course, that assumes any of this is even real and isn't just one massive, complex illusion. If it is just an illusion, well, you might as well enjoy the ride.)

Andrew White6 said: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.

In scientific terms, you’ve got physical time and psychological time. And honestly? You can manipulate that second one quite effectively—provided you happen to be in the good graces of the goddess Kali. 😁

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 get it now. A person has two hands, and it would be pretty foolish to only use one while keeping the other just for wiping your ass. 🤣

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.

An inflated ego needs to perceive something as being "difficult" just so it can feel like it’s actually accomplishing something meaningful. 😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:I get it now. A person has two hands, and it would be pretty foolish to only use one while keeping the other just for wiping your ass. 🤣

An inflated ego needs to perceive something as being "difficult" just so it can feel like it’s actually accomplishing something meaningful. 😁

You're just messing with me.
But honestly, war is just such a heavy thing to wrap your head around. It’s truly difficult.

So, Buddha RHP says that spirituality is actually a war. A WAR!!!

Nineteen out of twenty people—myself included, on occasion—tend to fall into the trap of thinking spirituality is something purely beautiful and fluffy, much like the feeling of being head over heels in love.
I mean, there’s just something about that certain... vibe. Go ahead, feel free. I’m being sensible here—unlike those old-fashioned Catholics who just sit around talking nonsense.

Spirituality can be such a mixed bag. Take the Komaj family, for example—it’s all this eclectic, free-flowing conversation that feels really welcoming and friendly. And then, wouldn't you know it, they throw some excitement and sex into the mix too. Hurrah!
Well, I don't know about you all, but if you ask Dragan and Franja - Komaj, they’ll tell you it isn't exactly a "sex rat" situation. 😁

It looks like Dragan and Franja - Komaj actually took things to court, suing Catholics just to prove they aren't Satanists! 🤣 Man, they really have declared total war on them. 😛

According to the LHP perspective, Komaj is actually considered LHP and "Satanism" itself.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that the Komaj group is "satanic" in the casual, everyday sense of the word. However, let's be clear: the Komaj association is strictly LHP.

I’m only bringing up Komaj to point out that when people join this group, the last thing on their minds is heading off to some battlefield. They don't realize that, at its core, Komaj is essentially an LHP community. Instead, 99% of the members seem to think they're embarking on a path that promises nothing but the absolute best—as if they're getting a little bonus package of spiritual enlightenment and great sex on top of it all. 😁 It’s not like we’re talking about some rigid Catholic standard or that typical RHP sense of chastity...

===

There’s just no war, no blood, no sweat, and no tears in spirituality anymore—at least according to what people call "modern spirituality" or even the way things seem to be going on this forum lately.

Let’s be honest, does Buddha RHP actually resort to hate speech? Because if he did, he’d be facing an immediate spiritual banishment right here and now. 😉

War? Please. If you ask any twenty out of twenty postmodern spiritualists or "new age" gurus—Joseph Bailey41 included—they’ll tell you that spirituality isn't about conflict at all. 🙂

How much do we actually know about what's objective?
Realization happens when you take something subjective and find proof for it out there in the objective world.

hiddenpuma75 said:You're just messing with me.
But honestly, war is just such a heavy thing to wrap your head around. It’s truly difficult.

So, Buddha RHP says that spirituality is actually a war. A WAR!!!

Nineteen out of twenty people—myself included, on occasion—tend to fall into the trap of thinking spirituality is something purely beautiful and fluffy, much like the feeling of being head over heels in love.
I mean, there’s just something about that certain... vibe. Go ahead, feel free. I’m being sensible here—unlike those old-fashioned Catholics who just sit around talking nonsense.

Spirituality can be such a mixed bag. Take the Komaj family, for example—it’s all this eclectic, free-flowing conversation that feels really welcoming and friendly. And then, wouldn't you know it, they throw some excitement and sex into the mix too. Hurrah!
Well, I don't know about you all, but if you ask Dragan and Franja - Komaj, they’ll tell you it isn't exactly a "sex rat" situation. 😁

It looks like Dragan and Franja - Komaj actually took things to court, suing Catholics just to prove they aren't Satanists! 🤣 Man, they really have declared total war on them. 😛

According to the LHP perspective, Komaj is actually considered LHP and "Satanism" itself.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that the Komaj group is "satanic" in the casual, everyday sense of the word. However, let's be clear: the Komaj association is strictly LHP.

I’m only bringing up Komaj to point out that when people join this group, the last thing on their minds is heading off to some battlefield. They don't realize that, at its core, Komaj is essentially an LHP community. Instead, 99% of the members seem to think they're embarking on a path that promises nothing but the absolute best—as if they're getting a little bonus package of spiritual enlightenment and great sex on top of it all. 😁 It’s not like we’re talking about some rigid Catholic standard or that typical RHP sense of chastity...

===

There’s just no war, no blood, no sweat, and no tears in spirituality anymore—at least according to what people call "modern spirituality" or even the way things seem to be going on this forum lately.

Let’s be honest, does Buddha RHP actually resort to hate speech? Because if he did, he’d be facing an immediate spiritual banishment right here and now. 😉

War? Please. If you ask any twenty out of twenty postmodern spiritualists or "new age" gurus—Joseph Bailey41 included—they’ll tell you that spirituality isn't about conflict at all. 🙂

Fine, if they’re really looking for a fight, they can have one once we finally cross paths. 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Fine, if they’re really looking for a fight, they can have one once we finally cross paths. 🙂

Coming straight from the dark side—from the shadow.

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 am not quite sure how to explain this to you gently.

One cannot simply be "a little bit left" and "a little bit right." In my view, that is nothing short of hypocritical.
It would be like deciding to be a Buddhist one day, a Telematist the next, then a Wiccan, then a partisan, then a fascist... essentially, just drifting according to whatever whim takes hold in the moment.

In my estimation, the right-hand path is "easier" because it allows you to conform to society. No one practicing LHP can maintain a relationship with a woman for whom childbearing and family life are the ultimate purpose. And let’s be honest—that is the reality for almost everyone.

So, there it is... I won't dwell on it any further.😁

Ryan Wilson2 said:I am not quite sure how to explain this to you gently.

One cannot simply be "a little bit left" and "a little bit right." In my view, that is nothing short of hypocritical.
It would be like deciding to be a Buddhist one day, a Telematist the next, then a Wiccan, then a partisan, then a fascist... essentially, just drifting according to whatever whim takes hold in the moment.

In my estimation, the right-hand path is "easier" because it allows you to conform to society. No one practicing LHP can maintain a relationship with a woman for whom childbearing and family life are the ultimate purpose. And let’s be honest—that is the reality for almost everyone.

So, there it is... I won't dwell on it any further.😁

Personally, I don't really claim a side. It’s not that I’m strictly one or the other, even though I can definitely appreciate certain aspects of both paths. Calling me a hypocrite feels like a bit of a stretch just because I haven't picked a camp or because I'm still wandering around somewhere in between. 😁 Is it more logical to embrace being an outsider—someone who admits they don't have all the answers, keeps searching, stays skeptical of everyone, and digs deep into the truth? Or is it more sensible to just admit that I’m completely distracted by the curves and the vibe of Ms. RHP and Ms. LHP? 😁

It’s pretty obvious to me now that because I worked for myself for so long, I was essentially a "sociological LHP." Being a freelancer meant I was always my own boss, but it also meant I was an outsider looking in—a bit of a loner navigating life on my own terms. Even today, I still carry that same sociological mindset, though I’ve actually added a new pursuit, let's call it activity X, which feels very similar to where my journey first began. On a spiritual level, however, I’ve been blending both paths together. Though, I have to admit—and I'll say it again—I honestly haven't the slightest clue which part of my experience qualifies as RHP and which is LHP.

Imagine if you had just been an employee at some big corporation instead of striking out on your own as an entrepreneur.
If we take a sociological look at things, you’re clearly coming from an RHP perspective here. But it makes me wonder—can we really slice every single aspect of life into this LHP versus RHP dichotomy? 🤔
Is it too harsh of me to call you a hypocrite? You aren't exactly an LHP or an independent entrepreneur; instead, you’ve conformed to society by working a corporate job and being RHP-subservient to an employer.
==

So, I take it you're a strict Catholic then? 😁 And monogamy? You’re implying that I can't be in a relationship where I love both the Buddhist lady (RHP) and the free spirit (LHP). It sounds like you're suggesting an open marriage or an open relationship is some kind of oxymoron.

In many ways, Komaj is clearly an LHP, but given that he’s got two, three, or even four wives—not to mention I can't even keep track of how many kids he has—I suppose that puts him firmly in the RHP category in your eyes.

I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on when exactly you made the "conscious" decision to embrace LHP as your sole path? I'd love to hear more about that transition.

If you ask me, following the RHP path is definitely the easier route because you’re actually playing by the rules of society. It’s much smoother. Honestly, someone who identifies as LHP just can't sustain a long-term relationship with a woman whose entire world revolves around having kids and starting a family. I know, I know—forgive my bluntness here—but it’s just the reality of the situation. Almost every time, it's the same story.

And that’s pretty much where I'll leave it... I won't go on about it any further. 😁

I see where you're coming from... if you want to look at it sociologically, RHP...
I’ve honestly never given much thought to the connection between LHP and having children. For me, the primary association with the Left Hand Path is the active, intentional practice of magic itself—it doesn't immediately strike me as being tied to whether someone has kids or not. I’d actually be quite curious to know what the percentage of parents looks like within LHP circles. Is there a significant overlap, or is it more of a contradiction? 🤔
So, walking the LHP path while also deciding to have kids... that's quite the balancing act, isn't it? 🤔

I mean, look at it this way... Buddhists and Catholics are both essentially following the RHP, yet they’re out here telling people on that path that they shouldn't even bother with a partner or having kids. It's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? 🤔

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...

hiddenpuma75 said:Personally, I don't really claim a side. It’s not that I’m strictly one or the other, even though I can definitely appreciate certain aspects of both paths. Calling me a hypocrite feels like a bit of a stretch just because I haven't picked a camp or because I'm still wandering around somewhere in between. 😁 Is it more logical to embrace being an outsider—someone who admits they don't have all the answers, keeps searching, stays skeptical of everyone, and digs deep into the truth? Or is it more sensible to just admit that I’m completely distracted by the curves and the vibe of Ms. RHP and Ms. LHP? 😁

It’s pretty obvious to me now that because I worked for myself for so long, I was essentially a "sociological LHP." Being a freelancer meant I was always my own boss, but it also meant I was an outsider looking in—a bit of a loner navigating life on my own terms. Even today, I still carry that same sociological mindset, though I’ve actually added a new pursuit, let's call it activity X, which feels very similar to where my journey first began. On a spiritual level, however, I’ve been blending both paths together. Though, I have to admit—and I'll say it again—I honestly haven't the slightest clue which part of my experience qualifies as RHP and which is LHP.

Imagine if you had just been an employee at some big corporation instead of striking out on your own as an entrepreneur.
If we take a sociological look at things, you’re clearly coming from an RHP perspective here. But it makes me wonder—can we really slice every single aspect of life into this LHP versus RHP dichotomy? 🤔
Is it too harsh of me to call you a hypocrite? You aren't exactly an LHP or an independent entrepreneur; instead, you’ve conformed to society by working a corporate job and being RHP-subservient to an employer.
==

So, I take it you're a strict Catholic then? 😁 And monogamy? You’re implying that I can't be in a relationship where I love both the Buddhist lady (RHP) and the free spirit (LHP). It sounds like you're suggesting an open marriage or an open relationship is some kind of oxymoron.

In many ways, Komaj is clearly an LHP, but given that he’s got two, three, or even four wives—not to mention I can't even keep track of how many kids he has—I suppose that puts him firmly in the RHP category in your eyes.

I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on when exactly you made the "conscious" decision to embrace LHP as your sole path? I'd love to hear more about that transition.

If you ask me, following the RHP path is definitely the easier route because you’re actually playing by the rules of society. It’s much smoother. Honestly, someone who identifies as LHP just can't sustain a long-term relationship with a woman whose entire world revolves around having kids and starting a family. I know, I know—forgive my bluntness here—but it’s just the reality of the situation. Almost every time, it's the same story.

And that’s pretty much where I'll leave it... I won't go on about it any further. 😁

I see where you're coming from... if you want to look at it sociologically, RHP...
I’ve honestly never given much thought to the connection between LHP and having children. For me, the primary association with the Left Hand Path is the active, intentional practice of magic itself—it doesn't immediately strike me as being tied to whether someone has kids or not. I’d actually be quite curious to know what the percentage of parents looks like within LHP circles. Is there a significant overlap, or is it more of a contradiction? 🤔
So, walking the LHP path while also deciding to have kids... that's quite the balancing act, isn't it? 🤔

I mean, look at it this way... Buddhists and Catholics are both essentially following the RHP, yet they’re out here telling people on that path that they shouldn't even bother with a partner or having kids. It's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? 🤔

I actually know an LHP couple with a young child. Though, to be fair, they don't really practice any of that ritual stuff anymore because they just don't have the time for those kinds of distractions.😁

I haven't kept up with everyone else I used to know, but my impression is that most of them don't have kids. Personally, I don't see much of a distinction between LHP and RHP since that divide doesn't really exist in my tradition (it feels more like a byproduct of monotheistic religions anyway). I just find it interesting to chat with people from both "sides," even if both seem pretty flawed to me.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Coming straight from the dark side—from the shadow.

Trying to fight your own shadow is a losing battle; it’s basically like trying to bite your own butt. 😁

hiddenpuma75 As stated by:
Personally, I don't claim membership to either side, as I clearly don't fit neatly into one category or the other—even if I find certain elements of both paths appealing. But calling me a hypocrite? That is a stretch. Simply because I don't belong exclusively to one camp, or because I find myself navigating the space between them, does not make my position insincere. 😁 .

After a few whiskeys and some beers, I start feeling like Jehovah himself—and that’s exactly when I begin passing judgment on everyone else. 🤣

Which path holds more merit? Is it more logical to embrace a state of perpetual inquiry—to remain unattached, to admit my own ignorance, and to relentlessly investigate while maintaining a healthy distrust of everyone I encounter? Or is it simply more honest to admit that I am captivated by the curves and the undeniable vibe of Ms. RHP and Ms. LHP? 😁

Ladies remain universal, regardless of the path one chooses to follow. 🧐

When one takes the time to look at this sociologically, you’re positioning yourself as RHP—but does that logic hold up when we try to dissect every single domain of human existence into a binary of LHP versus RHP? 🤔
Is it truly too harsh to call you a hypocrite? You claim certain principles, yet you aren't an LHP or an independent entrepreneur. Instead, you chose the path of least resistance by conforming to societal norms, taking a corporate job, and remaining RHP-subservient to an employer.

It isn't hypocrisy; I discuss this matter quite openly myself. One simply has to adapt if they intend to survive.

In my estimation, this leans much more toward being an FMP matter—or perhaps even closer to the Flexible Magich Path.

In many respects, Komaj embodies the very essence of LHP, yet he maintains two, three, or perhaps even four wives along with an indeterminate number of children—a reality that, in my estimation, firmly categorizes him as RHP.

Komaja loves women... that would be the KVŽ path. 🤣 It has absolutely nothing to do with LHP. The man just has an insatiable appetite for attention from women, and frankly, that sums up his entire character perfectly.

When exactly did you "consciously" decide to embrace LHP as your sole path? If you could elaborate on that turning point, I would appreciate it.

It is difficult to accept this as the sole path forward. In fact, it is largely impossible—unless, of course, you possess enough wealth to ensure you aren't beholden to the whims of society.

It never occurred to me to consider the connection between LHP and parenthood. In my mind, the primary association with the Left-Hand Path has always been the active, rigorous practice of magic itself—not whether or not one has children. It strikes me as a curious oversight. I find myself genuinely wondering: what is the actual percentage of practitioners within the LHP who are parents? Is there an inherent contradiction there, or am I simply overlooking a fundamental aspect of the lifestyle? 🤔

Kids consume an enormous amount of your daily bandwidth. Is it even feasible to maintain a dedicated magical practice when you have children in the house? Can you honestly tell them, "I am performing various rituals for the next thirty minutes, so please do not disturb me"?

because... Buddhists and Catholics follow the RHP, and they essentially advise those walking that path to avoid having partners or children altogether.🤔

The reality is that nobody actually follows that path to its absolute extreme, so that specific requirement is... well, it's just enough to wedge itself into your psyche and take advantage of your doubts.

Andrew White6 said: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.

Quantum physics shows us that precise measurement and predictability just aren't possible at certain levels of the physical world.
So why equate "nature" with "God"—basically, why lump God under the umbrella of the objective universe?

... Any experience of the objective universe is just indirect information, because it has to pass through the subjective universe—which, strangely enough, doesn't seem subject to the same natural, mechanical, or organic laws as the objective one. That’s really the main distinction between the two. The subjective universe has the option of acting "unnaturally"—meaning it isn't boxed in by the limitations of three dimensions and five senses. ...
The subjective universe, then, has this whole spectrum of possibilities—ranging from near-literal precision to total deception—simply because it isn't ruled by the laws of nature.
...

Where are you getting this idea that the subjective world isn't bound by natural laws and somehow involves "unnatural" action?

The fact that this "unnatural" aspect of the soul exists is pointed to by humanity's drive to impose man-made structures onto the objective universe—things like art and creativity, which are by definition set apart from the natural world, whether we're talking about the Pyramids, poetry, or political institutions.

The social base determines the social superstructure.
Karl Marx Quote

... The "right-hand path" is the way of unifying with universal reality (God or nature). Once that unity is fully achieved, the individual "I" is nullified; the person becomes one with the divine or the natural-cosmic order. In that state of heaven, or being/non-being in Nirvana, the ego ceases to exist—which is the ultimate goal of all Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist orthodoxies.

The idea that the individual "I" gets wiped out when merging with the divine is pretty debatable—especially since the ego isn't the same thing as the individual "I," as mentioned earlier.

Most people spend their lives chasing whatever gives them an edge—knowledge, power, freedom, status—basically anything that helps them climb the ladder in their own little corner of the world. It only makes sense that those practicing the spiritual "Left-Hand Path" would apply that same drive to the supernatural side of things. They aren't interested in following the rules laid out by the "Right-Hand Path," which constantly screams about how this kind of behavior is "evil." Those folks would rather you just stick to the script—follow God, follow nature, and be a well-adjusted, predictable part of the collective. Not exactly my style.

So, those who merge with God—do they just become these perfectly "well-adjusted collective people"?

The Left-Hand Path is essentially a journey toward inequality—a deliberate break from unity with the objective universe. It’s about isolating consciousness within this vast cosmos, forcing a kind of self-imposed psychological solitude that allows the practitioner to refine their soul, or psyche, to much higher levels. You aren't trying to fit into the world; you're forcing the universe to harmonize with your own will instead of the other way around. While the Right-Hand Path tends to be theocentric—or at least focused on some external higher power—the Left-Hand Path is purely psyche-centric. It’s ego-centric. It’s all about the soul. Definitions of the self, the ego, or the soul might vary depending on who you ask, but one thing remains constant: the individual is the undisputed epicenter of this path. The ultimate goal? A permanent separation of one's own intelligence from the objective universe—achieving an independent, immortal self-awareness that exists parallel to the world, interacting with it only on its own terms.

There’s just no way to actually isolate yourself from the objective universe—it's a myth. This whole idea that you can find a "path to isolating consciousness within an objective universe"—basically creating this state of forced psychic solitude to refine your soul or psyche to some higher level? It’s purely illusory.
The catch is this—you can't have "eternal separation" or some "immortal independent consciousness existing parallel to the objective universe" without merging with what we call God. In other words, you have to merge with the objective universe itself.
Any attempt at that kind of psychological self-absorption—that extreme sense of isolation—is just a one-way ticket to depression. Or, if you're lucky, it leads to nothing more than a massive, bloated ego.