Left Hand Path spirituality

Andrew White6 said: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.

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.

Besides, you're pretty much disqualifying yourself as a serious conversationalist here. 👏

Andrew White6 said:@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."

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.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:My cousin, a Reiki practitioner, didn't have any luck either.
After becoming a widower as a young retiree at sixty, he threw himself into Spark. Instead of continuing his studies in Yoga and Zen, he decided to focus exclusively on the Kama Sutra. And now, he goes through women like he's changing socks. Mind you, none of those women are exactly in their prime anymore. 😁

The lucky man certainly doesn't have to worry about menopause.😁

hiddenpuma75 said:I have to disagree when it comes to Smith (George Washington). I don't think it's fair to say he isn't LHP in that sense.
To me, LHP represents a path that weaves together true self-reliance, magic, and a refusal to just follow the herd. It’s about standing against the mainstream, which, at its core, feels like the ultimate hero's journey.
Smith and his little club share quite a few characteristics with the LHP.

Look, they don't really follow classic magic as a strict methodology. Instead, they’ve essentially mashed together various RHP techniques. But if you look at it from a purely political standpoint, George Washington and Smith are pure LHP through and through.
Besides, who exactly is this political bureau deciding what qualifies as "true" magic, or distinguishing between LHP and RHP practices? Honestly, his success across so many different fronts is proof enough—that’s pure magic right there. Sure, maybe it doesn't fit the textbook definition of LHP magic or the usual way people talk about it, but make no mistake: it is magic.

Aleister Crowley does a brilliant job of breaking down how the original Jesus was actually the ultimate embodiment of LHP. He lays it all out perfectly in his masterpiece. I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately diving deep into the philosophy behind the Left Hand Path, and I feel like there's a lot to unpack regarding how we navigate our own individual sovereignty. It isn't just about rebellion for the sake of being difficult; it’s a much more structured, intentional way of looking at the self versus the divine. When you look at the traditional religious frameworks most people grow up with, the focus is almost always on submission—surrendering your will to God to find peace or salvation. But the Left Hand Path flips that script entirely. Instead of seeking to dissolve the ego into a greater whole, the goal here is to strengthen the ego, to refine it, and eventually to elevate it to a god-like status through sheer willpower and self-knowledge. It’s a heavy concept, I know. I sometimes catch myself overthinking the nuances, wondering if I'm being too analytical when I should just be experiencing the practice. But that's part of the journey, right? Finding that balance between intellectual rigor and raw, lived experience. There is a certain beauty in the idea of becoming your own master. It’s not about chaos; it’s about order—but an order that you define for yourself rather than one imposed upon you by an external authority. It requires a level of discipline that many find uncomfortable, but for those who crave true autonomy, it’s the only path worth walking.

Jesus combined magic into his life; he didn't have a partner because he was LHP. 😁 He was a true hero who stood up against the establishment and the Matrix of that era, which is exactly why they had to take him out.

Politics, organized religion, and two millennia of sheer momentum have stripped him down. They’ve taken what was once an authentic, raw LHP figure and turned him into this pathetic, mainstream version of Jesus—just another face in the crowd, stuck in Sunday services and watered-down rituals. It feels like he's been diluted from being 90% LHP into nothing more than a standard, RHP caricature.

In my view, Komaj isn't even remotely LHP. Perhaps he would have been considered LHP if he had lived two hundred years ago.

And as for Jesus... who can truly say if he even existed at all?😁

And yes, I own that book; I noticed they redesigned the original cover to make it more socially acceptable.😉
For the record, mine has this kind of cover.

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. ☕

Andrew White6 said: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.

It seems there is a certain amount of hostility and malice directed at the interlocutor instead of actually addressing the topic at hand. Fine, I am just taking notes—though perhaps the depth of knowledge on this subject is questionable.

Even so, mental blocks shouldn't serve as an excuse for spreading misinformation. The author isn't a member or even a follower of CoS, nor is that the sole focus of his book. CoS is merely addressed in a single chapter as one of many trends within the wider spectrum of LHP practices.

I never even suggested he was a satanist, yet now I am being told he is simply a compiler of data regarding occult and dark spiritual practices.

I suppose I don't quite grasp what appealed to you, especially since the introduction makes the completely baseless claim that satanic and other obscure practices represent a subjective path while all others remain objective. It feels somewhat like an intellectual construct designed to imply the author has information on everything regarding the topic, yet possesses no actual spiritual insight whatsoever.

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.

We need both intellect and passion:
to let one feed the other—that’s
the job of those who were chosen
to find balance amidst the chaos;
sharp and witty, they can read
the signs—their hands are steady,
their tools tempered and ready.

Not even the softest sound escapes them;
they have to spot that tiny little
angle where the clock hands move
in a crawl you can barely see.
They have to meet the light flutter
of a butterfly's wing with a firm gaze
and feel exactly what the flower feels.

They’re fragile, just like any other living thing,
yet they have to be able to stand
against the greatest forces imaginable—
otherwise, they wouldn't have been picked in the first place!
Where others might crumble, it's their duty
to set the beat and to
feel the stone at the core of existence.

Like steady shepherds, they have to stand guard;
from a distance, he might look
a bit lonely, but the closer you get,
the more you feel how much he's watching over us.
Like stars guiding the way, everything must be
clear and close to them—
everything growing silently through the night.

They even stand watch over dreams while sleeping,
protecting existence itself—the laughter and the tears—
weaving meaning together... And when they're being tested,
when they collapse, exhausted, onto the earth,
and when they kneel before life and death,
in the very angle of their knees,
that's when the world finds a new measure.

Mary Shelley, (1875-1926)

Steven Stewart3 said:I'm not really a fan of writing in generalizations like "this is the hardest" or "this is the most common," etc.
But in my opinion—and I really want to emphasize this—there is no harder path than Jnana Yoga. It’s that classic paradox: it’s the most grueling way to go, but also the fastest. On this path, you’re stripped of everything. You face solitude, zero friends, none of that easygoing small talk over a latte, no traveling, no healthy social life... even your career (even though you might have all the right credentials, the drive, and the ambition) feels totally different.
You end up with a razor-sharp intellect because you’ve sacrificed so much to get there—though usually, it’s not even conscious at first. You don't realize what's coming until you finally pick up a book on yoga and it all clicks.
By then, you’ve been through the wringer in life. You’ve been tested so many times that everything a "normal" person finds attractive or pleasurable starts to feel hollow. It’s not that those things aren't enjoyable, it's just that you finally see exactly where they lead. To get there, you have to grind through intense concentration, deep meditation, diving into astrology, seeking out mentors, working with seasoned spiritual teachers, and all that good stuff.
There are tons of little nuances too, like how you frame your thoughts—for example, avoiding certain phrases or mental loops.

People on the other side are out there partying, drinking, and living it up, so their path feels way easier 😁. But obviously, that's a dangerous road to walk.

Beautifully stated—though if I may add my own perspective based on experience, no path is truly "hard" or "easy." A path is simply what it was designed to be, because every journey begins within ourselves. It almost doesn't matter which direction you choose—the ultimate destination remains the same. Your choice of path really just depends on your specific temperament and character. Just as a seed cannot sprout in any soil under any sun, every seed will eventually bear fruit in its own right.

Andrew White6 said: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.

It’s all a bit too much philosophy for my taste... though I suppose it serves as a convenient way to justify just about any personal action you care to take.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly? It’s just exhausting. You see these things happening, you read the news, and you think, "Surely, they can't be serious." But then, yep. They are. It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck that everyone is pretending is just a standard Tuesday. I was reading what hollowpuma762 had to say earlier, and honestly, I couldn't agree more. It’s all just noise. Constant, grinding noise. We spend so much energy arguing about the details while the whole foundation is basically made of wet cardboard. It’s cynical, sure, but someone has to say it. Everything feels increasingly performative, like we're all just playing parts in a play that stopped being funny decades ago. Anyway, my rant is over. I need more coffee. Or maybe a nap. Probably both.

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.

Maybe one day, when the rest of these loose cannons finally wrap their heads around what generalization actually means—when they grasp how they trivialize everything or fall headfirst into pure wishful thinking—they might actually learn to stop spouting such absolute garbage.

And some people? They’re actually going to look past the whole "left vs. right" nonsense and try to find a third way. A real alternative.

fadedsurfer2 said:Just checking in to breathe some life back into this interesting thread.

Here is the thing: many of you don't actually grasp what the Democratic Party philosophy entails. There is this prevailing assumption that we are just narcissists obsessed with ourselves, partying, sex, smoking weed, and rebelling against "moral" society at any cost. People look at us like animals, assuming this inward focus lacks any deeper purpose beyond mere self-indulgence.
From my own experience and that of everyone on this Path—I am certain that view is wrong. I stand by it firmly.

The Democratic Party is absolutely a spiritual path. It is an incredibly difficult and grueling one. It is a road where certain practitioners lose their minds very quickly due to total mental chaos, only to blame "demons" for the mess and kneel before an altar, pleading with > for help.

Why is it so hard? Why is dedicating oneself to personal growth such a struggle? Because once you peer into the dark depths of your own subconscious and encounter the repressed "shadow" that has tainted your entire life—and likely the lives of others—you can become paralyzed. You fall into depression, anxiety, panic, and are overwhelmed by guilt, hatred, and self-condemnation. It is a massive burden to descend into those depths and face who you truly are. It is a monumental challenge to embrace those "darker sides of the psyche," integrate them so they serve your goals, and then find the strength to forgive yourself. To accept yourself as you are and grow through it. One must be relentless on this path of progress through endless waves of pain and relief.

Furthermore, the Democratic Party does not define, nor will it ever define, what a person "must" be. If someone tells you, "You belong to the other side because you don't smoke, don't drink, and don't have sex—get out of this house of the liberated!" they are not practicing the Democratic Party.
To follow this path means acknowledging your own Shadows and discovering your true essence, living in alignment with that truth regardless of what you might be. Someone may be highly sexual, someone else completely asexual, someone transgender, someone might party constantly, while another might never touch a drop in their entire life... In this framework, everything is permitted, provided it isn't directed against another person.

One more thing: a defining characteristic is recognizing oneself as the ultimate authority over one's own life—which is how it should be, given we were created as beings with free will—as opposed to submitting to some deity or supreme authority whose views we don't necessarily agree with.

My personal opinion (I am emphasizing this because it is highly controversial in our circles, and I don't want to present it as a universal tenet of the Democratic Party) is that there are external authorities that align so closely with your own being that following them is essentially just following yourself. Thus, even a Catholic could technically fit the definition.
However, in those cases, it is a very rare occurrence. Most people choose to serve > for no other reason than pure fear; they are running from facing themselves and their own "darkness," looking for a transcendental "crutch" to lean on whenever they need help so they don't have to stand alone.

I know the devout Catholics and believers here will be incensed... But please realize I am not generalizing (as I mentioned, there are exceptions where teachings like Christ's align perfectly with one's deepest value systems). This fear of one's own "darkness" is widespread. It is almost biologically ingrained in humans to protect themselves from discomfort, often repressing it deep within the subconscious. Consequently, an individual who surrenders to a supreme authority truly believes they are doing so because it is "good" or "right."

That is all from me. 😉

By saying that, you're really broadening the scope of what LHP means. At this rate, the definition could easily swallow up a huge chunk of the unaffiliated crowd (who usually just gravitate toward whatever deity feels most like them), followers of Wicca, New Agers chasing their "higher selves," or even Christians who sincerely follow Jesus since they agree with all His teachings. And since you also define LHP through the pursuit of self-knowledge, you’re basically including a fair percentage of atheists too. I highly doubt most of those people would actually want to jump under this umbrella, though, especially since LHP is usually associated with a certain dark aesthetic and sometimes a slightly "sketchy" ethical reputation. Since you've been in this for decades—as you mentioned in another thread—you know exactly what I mean. I'm not just talking about recreational drugs or sex and all that nonsense; I'm talking about the darker side, like causing harm to others through psychological manipulation, for example.

fadedsurfer2 said:Just checking in to breathe some life back into this interesting thread.

Here is the thing: many of you don't actually grasp what the Democratic Party philosophy entails. There is this prevailing assumption that we are just narcissists obsessed with ourselves, partying, sex, smoking weed, and rebelling against "moral" society at any cost. People look at us like animals, assuming this inward focus lacks any deeper purpose beyond mere self-indulgence.
From my own experience and that of everyone on this Path—I am certain that view is wrong. I stand by it firmly.

The Democratic Party is absolutely a spiritual path. It is an incredibly difficult and grueling one. It is a road where certain practitioners lose their minds very quickly due to total mental chaos, only to blame "demons" for the mess and kneel before an altar, pleading with > for help.

Why is it so hard? Why is dedicating oneself to personal growth such a struggle? Because once you peer into the dark depths of your own subconscious and encounter the repressed "shadow" that has tainted your entire life—and likely the lives of others—you can become paralyzed. You fall into depression, anxiety, panic, and are overwhelmed by guilt, hatred, and self-condemnation. It is a massive burden to descend into those depths and face who you truly are. It is a monumental challenge to embrace those "darker sides of the psyche," integrate them so they serve your goals, and then find the strength to forgive yourself. To accept yourself as you are and grow through it. One must be relentless on this path of progress through endless waves of pain and relief.

Furthermore, the Democratic Party does not define, nor will it ever define, what a person "must" be. If someone tells you, "You belong to the other side because you don't smoke, don't drink, and don't have sex—get out of this house of the liberated!" they are not practicing the Democratic Party.
To follow this path means acknowledging your own Shadows and discovering your true essence, living in alignment with that truth regardless of what you might be. Someone may be highly sexual, someone else completely asexual, someone transgender, someone might party constantly, while another might never touch a drop in their entire life... In this framework, everything is permitted, provided it isn't directed against another person.

One more thing: a defining characteristic is recognizing oneself as the ultimate authority over one's own life—which is how it should be, given we were created as beings with free will—as opposed to submitting to some deity or supreme authority whose views we don't necessarily agree with.

My personal opinion (I am emphasizing this because it is highly controversial in our circles, and I don't want to present it as a universal tenet of the Democratic Party) is that there are external authorities that align so closely with your own being that following them is essentially just following yourself. Thus, even a Catholic could technically fit the definition.
However, in those cases, it is a very rare occurrence. Most people choose to serve > for no other reason than pure fear; they are running from facing themselves and their own "darkness," looking for a transcendental "crutch" to lean on whenever they need help so they don't have to stand alone.

I know the devout Catholics and believers here will be incensed... But please realize I am not generalizing (as I mentioned, there are exceptions where teachings like Christ's align perfectly with one's deepest value systems). This fear of one's own "darkness" is widespread. It is almost biologically ingrained in humans to protect themselves from discomfort, often repressing it deep within the subconscious. Consequently, an individual who surrenders to a supreme authority truly believes they are doing so because it is "good" or "right."

That is all from me. 😉

Moving past the clichés and pop-philosophy—how would you actually define LHP?

In Christianity, any deviation from God—even by just one degree—is a path toward hell. To me, hell is basically just the inability to see yourself in your neighbor, let alone reflecting the divine image. It’s a common critique of Christians, too—if they hate someone, their God hates them right along with them.

So, where does mysticism fit into the path of the left hand? Are we talking actual supernatural forces here, or is all the ritual stuff just high-stakes psychodrama?

analogbear5 said:Moving past the clichés and pop-philosophy—how would you actually define LHP?

In Christianity, any deviation from God—even by just one degree—is a path toward hell. To me, hell is basically just the inability to see yourself in your neighbor, let alone reflecting the divine image. It’s a common critique of Christians, too—if they hate someone, their God hates them right along with them.

So, where does mysticism fit into the path of the left hand? Are we talking actual supernatural forces here, or is all the ritual stuff just high-stakes psychodrama?

Nothing. Or rather, whatever happens when a specific author or their supposed authority gets mocked, along with all the other empty, airy nonsense found in religious and spiritual circles.😉

For instance, some early Hindu texts list Kaula and Tantra as separate paths, even though today people treat Kaula as a textbook example of Tantra, and Tantra itself as the Left-Hand Path.

Then you have the way early Orientalists tried to redefine Tantra entirely.

Then there are attempts to rewrite definitions for nationalist reasons, often constrained by Victorian morality during those late-colonial Hindu nationalist movements and reforms.

Then you have the early Western occultists who just picked up pieces of that messy narrative.

Then you have neo-tantrics like Osh, who cook up their own stories by mixing things with humanistic psychotherapy and various cultish nonsense.

And then you have the Satanists and similar kids.

Basically, once the hype dies down, everyone is left convinced they have a clear view of the spiritual world, while they’re actually just trapped inside their own heads—living through projections and fantasies (some shared by the group) that can be manufactured by anyone and never have any actual basis in reality.

LHP, RHP, upper, lower, middle path... it’s all just noise.

Sounds like that "Spiritual but not religious" crowd—just with a non-conformist™ label slapped on top.

The spirituality supermarket is packed with all kinds of junk, and they throw in the glitter for free.

Did someone mention glitter? 🙂

bluemason3 said:Nothing. Or rather, whatever happens when a specific author or their supposed authority gets mocked, along with all the other empty, airy nonsense found in religious and spiritual circles.😉

For instance, some early Hindu texts list Kaula and Tantra as separate paths, even though today people treat Kaula as a textbook example of Tantra, and Tantra itself as the Left-Hand Path.

Then you have the way early Orientalists tried to redefine Tantra entirely.

Then there are attempts to rewrite definitions for nationalist reasons, often constrained by Victorian morality during those late-colonial Hindu nationalist movements and reforms.

Then you have the early Western occultists who just picked up pieces of that messy narrative.

Then you have neo-tantrics like Osh, who cook up their own stories by mixing things with humanistic psychotherapy and various cultish nonsense.

And then you have the Satanists and similar kids.

Basically, once the hype dies down, everyone is left convinced they have a clear view of the spiritual world, while they’re actually just trapped inside their own heads—living through projections and fantasies (some shared by the group) that can be manufactured by anyone and never have any actual basis in reality.

LHP, RHP, upper, lower, middle path... it’s all just noise.

It’s just like how Smith put it: 'I don't care if it's left or right, up or down. I'm a hardcore graduate of the school of hard knocks.' 😁

It’s just about taking the right path. You can actually see the truth behind this idea hidden right in our language—for instance, we use the word "right" in English, which carries that dual meaning of direction and morality, much like how similar concepts work in other languages.

It honestly feels like narcissistic ideology is just a shortcut for people who lack focus or structure, those who are constantly chasing "something more" but are simply too unmotivated or incapable of putting in the actual work required for a disciplined mental or spiritual education.