Talk:Left-hand path and right-hand path/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

western

This new version of the article is 100 % western, I don't like it. ~August

You're welcome to change it. For my part, I don't see any information on the usage of the terms in the east in the old article that isn't in this one. -Didactohedron 21:03, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

The focus now is on self vs. collective. That is western. Eastern is yin and yang style, passive/active, the quick easy way or the way of strife and effort, intuition or logic, kundalini or hatha yoga, nerves or muscles. ~August

It would be nice if someone that knew anything about the eastern thinking on the left hand path could write a section on it. I myself have only knowledge about the western view on the left hand path. I'm sure they are both ways of thinking that exist seperatly, and they most likely put different meanings to the same phrase. It will simply take someone with knowledge of what the eastern left hand path is to add that information.

-kooR deR

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning August. Could you please try to explain it differently, or make the necessary additions to the article? I'm very happy w the article as it now stands, BTW, great work Didactohedron! Sam [Spade] 03:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again. This is absolutely brilliant work. I appreciate keeping the list of religions in either column, as it preserves some of the original article and is a good primer for the belief system these words are a part of. Re- August, the focus is now on fact, which is the m.o. here. db 09:25, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Sam and db for the praise. I updated the article with some information about the usage of the terms in Tantra. Better, August? -Didactohedron 06:30, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Is Vajrayana really Left-Hand Path? I have been practing at one such center and it sure does not seem to be the case. I do not deny the existence of LHV, but it is certainly not the only variety, and probably isn't even the most widespread. Similarly, I don't think Mahayana Buddhism qualifies as LHP either, although by definition Hinayana would. Luis Dantas 17:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Luis Dantas: Specifically, Kargyu and Nyingma, both parts of Vajrayana, are definitely LHP - and Tatar Lamaism (or Shamanism) is also LHP and quite different from Tibetan "Buddhism" despite its being lumped in with it and despite the two people often sharing temples in the USA where some of both groups immigrated. In the Tatar Buddhism/Lamaism, for example, warriors and war lords (such as Temujin "Jenghis Khan" and Amursana) are given the status of Khutukhtu (Living Gods). There are absolutely no prohibitions against eating anything, especially meat, or drinking anything, including kumiss - a beverage that makes 100 proof Vodka seem tame. Social customs do not infringe on the religion at all. There are laws, not taboos. A law breaker faces jail, very practical. A law breaker may be an Adept. It doesn't matter. LHP is the way of yin, of the inner or hidden. RHP is the way of yang or outer path. From T. Jantsang

I respectfully (but emphatically) disagree. In fact, this article as a whole displays some rather surprising opinions about Buddhism. I guess LHP-RHP distinctions do not really apply neatly to that religion. In fact, I wonder if they apply to any healthy religion (or for that matter, any healthy practicioner) at all. Luis Dantas 17:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The more I research, the more certain I am that LHP-RHP are a western (and modern) invention. Are there ANY sources documenting the supposed LHP nature of some oriental and/or ancient religions? Luis Dantas 10:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

How ancient? Shamanism is quite old, likely predating most other religions in some form or another, but generally qualifies as "LHP". Maybe the problem lies with the definition, and also with this article's slant towards cults and satanism. --Thoric 06:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of anyone calling Shamanism LHP. Luis Dantas 22:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If LHP and RHP are both different paths leading to the same enlightenment whereby the RHP is through strict adherence to religious institutional norms and ethics, and where the LHP is through deviation from social norms, then Shamanism appears to qualify for LHP when compared to mainstream religions. The shamanic way involves self discovery, as opposed to following a set of strict and established rules. The shaman strives to obtain altered states of consciousness to communicate with spirits through ritual, singing, chanting, dancing, fasting, psychoactive plants, inducing pain, etc, as opposed to reading bibles. --Thoric 21:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly, thanks; the LHP-RHP distinction depends on an artificial dualism that does not really apply to traditional or healthy religions, including Shamanism. Religions are NOT supposed to demand such a foolish choice "between" self-discovery and adherence to rules. The very idea that there _is_ such a thing as a "LHP religion" or "RHP religion" is just glorified prejudice, attempting to compensate real or perceived abuse by confronting it (usually by creating further abuse heading to a different direction). Trying to find ancient examples of such a modern (and misguided) concept is simple naive crypto-revisionism that only leads to further confusion. Luis Dantas 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

please read "At the left hand of God" by Robert.E Svaboda" to understand the left hand path.

That, alas, is not a readily available book. Would you like to comment on the author's ideas, either here or in the article proper? Luis Dantas 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to include bible quotes on a Left-hand Path page. It would be akin to me placing pro Satanic passages on a Christian page. I am removing them. Magialuna 13:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actually, it is sort of a given. After all the LHP has no substance of its own, and can only exist by defining itself as an opposition to supposedly RHP religions such as Christianism. Luis Dantas 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Svaboda trilogy is available online. Do a torrent search using keywords Occult Digest and you should find it. estéban (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

LHP, in its old form, ment to be completely immersed in the physical, material world.  RHP was for ascetics.  But in today's, more mature, and spiritually guided occult world, it has come to mean much more.  But, luckily for everyone, I can sum it up in one simple right vs. left: RHP submits to, and follows the jews. LHP take the Path of Satan (literally Adversary in Hebrew) and refuse to submit to the jews, nor recognize any divinity within them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.125.156.29 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@AD64: There is a lot of opinion being vollied around here (talk page and article). Speaking specifically to the eastern definitions here, Vajrayana is not inherently left or right handed. The distinction, which is technical mostly to Hindu tantric practices, describes those groups that use the ritual of the five 'm's which includes the drinking of alcohol, ritual sex with a prostitute, eating meat, eating fish, and 'mudra' which can be understood here as either roasted grain, hand gestures, or according to Christopher Chapple: hand-based sex. In sanskrit these are Mamsa Matsya Madhu/Madhira, Mudra and Maithuna. Vajrayana, like all the right hand path schools of India, comes from a tradition in which these elements mostly became symbolic and not literal, sterilized in tibetan tradition by Tsongkhapa and the Indian tradition by gorakshanath. In essence, the Indic understanding of right hand path means tantrism that does not take the 5 'm's ritual literally. If your ritual yubyum (intercourse) is imagined, its right handed, if its literal then its left handed. If you drink and eat meat normally, that is not left handed, it's only the ritual use of it for liberation that matters. People practicing bhakti and eating steak aren't left handed tantrics, their just omnivores. Vajrayana has both, but the majority is the tame right handed path, while the left handed path is the charnal ground cults such as the Kubjika and Tripura Sundari cults before the reformation of Kaulism under Gorakshanath that led to haṭha yoga internalizing the 5 'm's in mudra practice calling the tongue the meat and the amrta (which mallinson considers to be saliva) the liquor. Everything on here seems to be based on western occultists' misinterpretations of a subject that has been spelled out in great academic detail. There is not one reliable citation behind any of the eastern notions on this page. And equating the two is Original Research which is not the purview of the wiki editor. Their only historical connection with western occultism is that western neo-occultists stole terminology from eastern mysticism because they were terrible academics. This is why I think this page should just be about western occultism and let the vamachara and dakshinachara pages explain the eastern notion. And all the talk about Astika and Nastika doesn't hold true if we are talking about Buddhist tantra as well, because left and right handed tantric buddhism are both still Nastikas to the Hindu Darshans. Frankly, the errors are too much to remove without simply rewriting, which seems a less than worthwhile endeavor since the accurate information is already in its proper place on the wiki.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā:, thank you for your long, thoughtful, and useful response. This helps make sense of some of the focus of this particular article and what is happening on the talk page. I have some knowledge of the tantric side of things. So as a first time reader of this article, with a tantric but not western understanding, this page was very confusing to me until I bumped into the tantric material here. From the perspective of a first time reader, I wonder if the title of the article could be changed to read something like "Left-hand path and right-hand path in western esoteric traditions" and then have an immediate link to Vamachara at the top of the page? For new readers of this page, it would help point them in the right direction. As a new editor, it would also help me (and others) know whether this was a page in my current area of editing interest. In addition, the picture at the top of the page is confusing for those coming for the first time. If the page stays western, with clarifying title, then the image might work. If the tantric material remains, then the current image, from the western LHP tradition, doesn't work so well, and I would suggest either moving the image down to a section on western LHP or adding an additional tantric LHP relevant photo. I also just looked at the Vamachara article. There is a sentence that says that vamachara is "synonymous" with LHP and links to this page. I think that this erroneous and should be changed too to reduce all kinds of confusion (either add more clarifying details in the first paragraph of the vamachara article or remove that wikilink and add a separate sentence with something like: "For more on the LHP in the western esoteric traditions see ..." So, I agree that tantra LHP and the western LHP should be separated out then, if these kinds of clarifying edits and details can be attended to. I am really in favor of making things clear for first time readers and reducing confusion. Thanks for the ongoing discussion on an important topic and all of your combined work on this. Best, AD64 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful word

I've reworded the following sentence

Conversely, "Left-Hand Path" belief systems value the advancement and preservation of the self, glorification of more temporal and terrestrial goals, and personal power through spiritual attainments; generally seeking guidance of one or more deities in theistic practices or with self-driven guidance of human instincts in atheistic ones.

It now reads:

Conversely, the "Left-Hand Path" belief systems value the advancement and preservation of the self, as well as the pursuit of temporal and terrestrial goals. These goals are achieved either by seeking the guidance of one or more deities via theistic practices, or more commonly, via non-theistic uses of instincts and logic.

It may not be perfect, but it's more accurate, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.126.195 (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the original is actually better. "Via non-theistic uses of instincts and logic" is very strained. In this case, I think that "atheistic" is the correct and obvious way to describe belief systems that are, well, atheistic. Your removal of the word glorification, on the other hand, I agree with completely. That's a fundamentalist Christian buzzword and therefore it does not belong in an objective discussion of belief systems. Actually, I've got a good idea for rewording that strained second sentence, and I'm going to run with it. 71.135.121.63 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful paragraph

Removed from the article:

In recent practice, Gnostic Master Samael Aun Weor introduced the term "sex magic" in explicit reference to tantra in his 1950 publication of The Perfect Matrimony: Tantra, The Door to Initiation. Although he does not refer explicitly to the Right Hand Path (RHP) or Left Hand Path (LHP), it is clear from his over 50 books that "white sex magic" (without spilling the semen) and "black sex magic" (spilling semen) refer, respectively, to the RHP and LHP. (Samael Aun Weor advocates "scientific chastity" in tantra and abstinence from alcohol, but does not require strict vegetarianism. A limited form of animal sacrifice [i.e., consumption] is necessary to perform the Gnostic Work of white tantric sex magic; and cannibalism is not allowed!)

Problems:

This probably doesn't belong in the section on Hindu tantra, since it deals with a 20th-century Colombian neo-Gnostic writer. My guess is it belongs in the article Samael Aun Weor.
It isn't clear to me that this Weor personage is saying anything particularly original on the subject. He certainly did not invent the term "sex magic", given that Aleister Crowley and others were using it long prior to 1950. False claims such as this cast doubt on the rest of the paragraph.
If Weor "does not refer explicitly" to LHP / RHP in his work, who is it who thinks that he's talking about them?

--FOo 04:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being removed so long as you merge it elsewhere. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 12:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a fan of this Samael Aun Weor person trying to fit him into a subject in which he does not belong. It should be moved to the Samael Aun Weor article. --Solar 02:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is not correct. Left Hand Path is spoken about in the Perfect Matrimony. Should be rewritten. Fubar, what you say is true but exoteric works about sexual magic written prior to 1950 do not exist. For example, if you understand Dion Fortune, Levi, C. W. Leadbeater, M., Alchemical works, etc., Sexual Magic is spoken of in many areas but they always covered in esoteric code. Additionally, Samael Aun Weor speaks at length on Aztec and Mayan occult mysteries which I have never seen even touched by anyone else. -- Paul Stone

It is true that as far as I have seen Crowley did not use the literal term 'Sex magick' but instead talked of OTO grades and Elixirs etc. However Austin Osman Spare did 'explicitly' refer to sex in a magickal context in his books and went into great detail about his concept of self-love. Crowley was also involved in Spare's book 'Now for reality' which is again very explicit in its discussion of sex and magick. The concept of sex and magick is not new and is referred to in witchcraft literature as early as the 1500's without the veiled techniques, which were used by the alchemists and occult schools. It seems that although Samael Aun Weor may have used the actual term sexual or sex magick early on, he is not considered by most modern writers on the subject to be an important contributor to the concept. It would seem that the terms history and usage today derives more from the 1970's and its use by Israel Regardie as well as lesser known writers including, Louis T. Culling and John Mumford. The concept was also popularized by practitioners of Chaos magic and Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth again in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. I would recommend that if there is strong opinion from more that one user for this person then he should be added with a statement something like this: ‘Sex Magick, a term which may have originated with Gnostic writer Samael Aun Weor in the 1950’s but was popularized in the 1970’s by a range of writers’. I think most feel that to give Samael Aun Weor credit for his contributions over someone like Spare, Crowley or Regardie would be inaccurate and even unfair. I would also recommend that we begin a Sex magick page. --Solar 16:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The Bible, from Genesis to Apocalypse, is nothing but a series of historical events of the great struggle between the followers of Agathos and Cacus, White and Black Magic, the adepts of the Right-hand Path, the Prophets, and the adepts of the Left-hand Path, the Levites..." - Samael Aun Weor, The Three Mountains User:Fransu7 —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Discordianism

Can discordianism really be defined as left-hand path religion? There is a goddess. Also note the things said about the pentagon in the picture description of the sacred chao in the discordianism article. Are they factual?

I was wondering about the same thing. I don't know an awful lot about Discordianism, but it's inclusion here struck me as rather odd. 80.203.115.12 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well i suppose it could, it certainly has tendencies that line-up with Hedonism and other quite LHP value sets. Not to mention it's out of the norm, which should be enough to consider it it LHP.--24.107.9.33 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Article seems to be POV

I'm not sure if it's just me, but this article seems to be a little POV in the sense that followers of the "left hand path" are portrayed as self-absorbed satanic occultist nutjobs, and followers of the "right hand path" as kind, loving, good people.

The left / right hand path division has far more to do with deviating from social norms than moral issues. Followers of the "right hand path" tend to view deviation from social norms as immoral, but that does not make it so. Likewise (as mentioned), followers of the "left hand path" tend to view followers of the "right hand path" as closed-minded sheep. --Thoric 23:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a very interesting questioning. How about suggesting some changes to make the article more NPOV? If you would rather not change the article outright, you may always propose those changes here in the Talk page. I personally think that it IS just you - AFAIK only the "nutjob" part does not really apply to LHP'ers. Neither do I really see how the difference between LHP and RHP could have more to do with social norms than moral issues. Luis Dantas 05:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If Aleister Crowley is going to be the a prime example of a follower of the LHP, and use examples such as The Church of Satan for LHP religions, then how could this article not seem to be potraying followers of the LHP as a bunch of nutjobs? My suggestion would be to focus a little less on new age occult religions and cults, and to focus a little more on long established LHP religions. Most true LHP religions do not condone what they consider immoral activities, but their activities would certainly go against social norms. --Thoric 15:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK the LHP and RHP concepts _are_ a recent, western invention, so there _are_ no long established LHP religions. If there are, the article should make an effort to leave that clear. Thelemites and others often make claims related to ancient cults, but to the best of my knowledge that is just a marketing strategy with little or no substance.

And of course a LHP religion would not condone what _it_ considers immoral activities; _that_ would be the mark of a nutjob (more technically, a schizophrenic) belief. Luis Dantas 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hah, pretty much. Crowley gives the names of various people he calls members of the A.'.A.'. or members of the opposing Black Brotherhood, but none of those people verifiably used the name for themselves. Dan 18:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic Taboo against touching religious texts with the left hand"

I'm a Muslim and i've never heard of a taboo against touching religious texts with the left hand.

It's something related to not touching it with the same hand you wipe your butt with as far as I recall.

I have heard of that, but in the context of India and/or Hinduism. It should be noted that quite a few Indians are muslims. Luis Dantas 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah -- most of Pakistan

Them too :) But even after the creation of Pakistan, Islam has quite a few practicioners in current India. Please see Islam in India. Luis Dantas 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several hadith urging believers to "clean" themselves (so to speak) with the left hand and identifying the left hand as an "unclean" hand. The Qu'ran (I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong) contains a directive to not eat or touch holy texts with "unclean hands" this I believe is the source of the "taboo" mentioned in the article. However, that is original research and honestly I could be wrong, is their someone with a better knowledge of Islamic taboos/laws that we could defer to? -Anymouse

Slight rewording

Atheists often also see this as a false dichotomy, and they (obviously) do not partake in any religion. I've reworded it slightly to reflect this.

I am a firm atheist that considers my religion to be Dark Sprituality. My strong belief that God does not exist does not mean I do not partake in any religion. I also consider the dichotomy to be valid as it is a similar if not the exact same dichotomy my religion makes as well. I realize that what I consider to be a relgion, many others would not, though there are plenty of recognized religions that do not require a belief in a transcendant God. -kooR deR 22:12 18 November, 2005 (UTC)

Not _that_ obvious. Quite a few atheists follow religions. Belief in God is not nearly the prerequisite for having a religion that most people think it to be. Luis Dantas 05:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yes, sizable precentages (30%?) of British Anglican priests are agnostic or atheist. SaTAN 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Crowley's usage

I just corrected a minor mistake in this part of the article. Crowley did, in fact, use the term "Left-Hand Path" in isolation (namely, when writing on his copy of Mein Kampf), according to Lawrence Sutin. Dan 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a chapter called left hand path in "Magick without tears" Crowley goes into the subject quite extensively and it is nothing like the presesnt article. He also discusses LHP through the chapters on magickal schools. Just trying to help. Here is a link to a pdf for those that do not own a copy of the book. http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt_contents.html Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern View:

To my knowledge, the eastern view is that on the wheel of eighty four (administered by Kal Niranjan) there are those who assist in bonding souls to the material plane. They do this by slight of hand, Left Hand Path sociaties being a prime example. For this they are given material recompence (this being the lowest plane.) Each plane is dual in nature and has either dual gardians or dual aspects of a guardian (Kal and Shiva in the case of the material plane) An important aspect to note is that Brothers of the Left Hand Path cannot ascend above the material plane and are doomed to return to the wheel over and over until they eventualy become Brothers of the Right Hand Path (as has been documented) Also I would like to say to seekers, do not worry overly about what the eastern view on these things is because the Eastern View would be that "WHEN THE STUDENT IS READY THE MASTER APPEARS" an Eastern and Western occult truth.

Eritus sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum (Ye shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil)

Deus Malum

Origins

The usage of the term "left-hand path" is centuries older than Blavatsky, so to credit her as the originator of the phrase is incorrect. The root of the term is in Hindu Tantra, and Blavatsky and Crowley certainly first took the term from there. --Snowgrouse 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A reference would be nice. Luis Dantas 07:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do some searching in Blavatsky over the weekend. I also seem to recall that Paschal Beverly Randolph may have used the term. He certainly was considered an important figure in the evolution of sex magic as used in modern ceremonial magical systems.

I think that Snowgrouse may have a good point regarding Blavatsky. I also do not think that she originated the terms. The original source was surely tantric. But Blavatsky may have adopted the terms in the course of her own studies, incorporating them into her own works, where they were picked up by others in the Western magical tradition.

I also do not like the paragraph discussing Choronzon and the 11th Sephira. I think that the paragraph comes across as too technical, and needs to be explicated more simply. estéban (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the word "occidental" to the Blavatsky section and prefaced it with the wiki description of Vamachara. I figure it's contextual and chronological. I also suggest removing that last section "Usage in Tantra" as this Origin section's mention of Vamachara would make it redundant, also this final section "Usage in Tantra" currently reads with bias; I have also addressed bias within a reference attachment to Vamamarga linked to Kaula. (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What the left hand is used for

"Much of this has been contributed by the practice in many cultures of using the left hand to cleanse oneself, thus making the hand "unclean"." That bit makes it sound like using the left hand to cleanse oneself is some kind of ritual exorcism of evil spirits with the left hand or something. But I always thought the reason why desert tribes had this left-right hand thing was because there was no toilet paper in the desert? I think we can remove the quotes around unclean.

While your observations seem correct to me, I do not follow the logic. The left hand is symbolically "unclean" because of its association with personal higiene; the right hand is traditionally spared for "cleaner" acts and the left is used for tasks that might conspurcate it (either physically or spiritually). Luis Dantas 08:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

the left hand is used for wiping in cultures without toilet paper and tissues, the right hand is used for eating, and shaking hands. Rds865 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm right-handed, I use my left hand to masturbate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.219.29 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OLHP

the 'order of the left handed path' needs to be REcreated (unless someone can pull up the old) and be made a subset of this. the ORDER of the left is FAR more direct than merely being left handed. they focus on deception - and ending religion (christianity in partic). any work would be most appreciated. :D

Need to integrate this article into Left/Right in a neutral way, with connotations of leftness then bolted on top of this 80.229.47.244 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)jago25

Tags + Title

Lacking in citations. Without inline citations the reference list constitutes further reading at this point. Without specific citations to support this analysis it is potentially an WP:OR article. Any chance the sources can be cited to validate the content? Personally, I also think the title of the article is problematic, might be better, in the long run, having an article entitled Left Hand Path and then discuss the right hand path in the context of this subject. Or, simply create another article called Right Hand Path article and link in the text of each, any opinions on this??? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Origins: broader philosophical (& political) associations?

I quote from the article:

Consequently, the left hand has often symbolized the rejection of traditional religion, which is most often characterized by the Right-Hand Path. The distinction most likely is that the Right-Hand Path is the path to (or communication with) a different plane of existence, whereas the Left-Hand Path is the path to (or a communication with) this plane of existence. We're considered to be "down here" and divinities are considered to be "up there".
(The terms "left" and "right" as applied to politics have a different origin. They are derived from the seating in the French Legislative Assembly in 1791.)

I know this is extremely over-generalized and vague---and runs the risk of offending many practioners of the LHP, as well as hostile critics who will say it is unsourced or irrelevent---but in a nutshell, all things "Right" throughout history have been associated with masculinity, heaven/sky, spirit, morality, the existing power-structure in society, discipline, self-denial, honor, glory, military, hard work, in short, with conservatism (traditional authority & authoritarianism), while all things "Left" have been associated (variously) with femininity, ground/earth, body, hedonism, revolutionary/rebel movements, indulgence, self-gratification, dishonor, grossness, Intelligentsia, laziness, in short, with liberalism and/or libertarianism. These are the true Satanic or LHP qualities, and no one need be ashamed of them, but feel proud to reclaim them from centuries of false-guilt and shame heaped upon them by the proponents of the RHP. This is also parallel to the historic battle between "Gods and Giants", first noted by Plato in The Sophist, with himself and all the other RHPers (such as Pythagoras and could be extended out in time to include Buddha, Christ, Kant, Hitler, etc.) fighting on the side of the RHP heavenly Gods against the LHP Earth-Giants (which include the Sophists, Democritus, Epicurus, and extending to include Hume, Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, Russell). Here's an excellent external link: [1]

Generational Satanism

I've seen the term generational Satanism applied to the concepts of Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path. There should probably be more information about this term and how it is related to these occult paths. ADM (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me fathom what that is. I even googled it and read about it and still can't figure out what it is. Zazaban (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note of Consideration *

The terms Left Hand and Right Hand "Path" are used in several different and separate systems. Therefore many of the usages and adaptions [u]might[/u] not have a common context. This will help the reader understand why some of the material does not homogonise easily. As these developments are parallel it can be interesting to compare them but in doing so please recall that comparison does not guarantee consistency, especially in derived philosophies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.198.52 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

from Mike: I have absolutely no idea what you people are talking about, but if this is your fact: "The terms Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path are a dichotomy between two opposing philosophies found in the Western Esoteric Tradition, which itself covers various groups involved in the occult and ceremonial magic." then the one who wrote "Other RHP traditions include most of Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and all other Dharmic religions." has a wrong perception of these eastern concepts. It seems like the first 'discussor' is right, this is more of a western approach... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.81.16 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

POV edits regarding Thelema

I'm opening a dialogue for any interested individuals who seek to debate Thelema and directly associated branches of Golden Dawn or Rosicrucianism as LHP. I have noticed persistent edits which revolve around POV hoping to use the article to argue Thelema and particular offshoots as LHP. Generally speaking and by majority of practice in Thelema, Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism etc., these are RHP or "white-light" oriented sects among esotericism. By average hermeticists and thelemites do not debate nor contend their practices are of predominant LHP nature, to the contrary the roots of such practices are decidedly RHP in nature and action; the apparent tone throughout the article supports western esotericism, GD and Thelemic practices as passive magickal paths. Even if Thelema and Golden Dawn can be found to embrace minor aspects of LHP, by and large these aspects are not crucial nor foundational to their passive magickal intent.Blackson (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See, the problem here lies in that Thelema is the central path. It isn't Right-Hand in any of it's context. Much to the contrary, it's a revolutionary movement. Even the very basic "tenets" of Thelema prove that it is adhering to the Left-Hand Path, at least by the guidelines found in the article:

They adhere to social conventions and avoid taboos.

They divide the concepts of mind, body and spirit into three separate, albeit interrelated entities.[3]

They adhere to a specific moral code and a belief in some form of judgement, such as karma or the Threefold Law.[3]

Thelema doesn't avoid Taboos. Much to the contrary, it encourages breaking them - see Liber AL chapter III (as a whole). It doesn't divide the concept of mind, body, spirit. Much to the contrary, we treat everything as one coherent whole - see the concept of Adam Qadmon and Heru Ra Ha. Nor do we adhere to any form of morals, or believe in any form of judgment. Even a cursory reading of Liber 77 can prove that we're all about personal freedom.

Now the question is, whose agenda is it to have Thelema listed in the Right-Hand Path?

In the meantime, I'll just take Thelema off the page entirely, since it's clearly disinformation, and has to be debated for quite a while as to it's "real" alignment.

--Surgo451 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of tantra descriptions

I'm of the opinion that the tantra references don't belong here. This page would be more concise if it stuck to the western occult traditions. The sections in question are well written, but would be better placed within their own pages which are currently under utilised. That could keep this more comprehensively about western occult traditions since the connections between the two are all either theoretical or modern appropriations. It would be better to have a section about orientalism and the appropriation of 'exotic mysticism' by people like Crowley Blavatsky and Samael to make the distinction clearer.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I find the tantra references here to be very useful actually. They help provide historical context for the western occult traditions. Yet, if the suggested content were indeed added to the page, then brief descriptions of the tantric use of 'left-hand path' and 'right-hand path' with links back to their own pages would work, imho. Best, AD64 (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I just stopped by to see how things were unfolding here, and the top of the article with links looks good; it's much more clear and allows first time readers to know if they are in the place they intended to be. Thank you to who ever did this. AD64 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)