Political Crossfire Forums

[Kt]

Quote from Wikipedia
Quote:
Usage in Tantra

Tantra, a set of esoteric Indian traditions with roots in both Hinduism and Buddhism, is often divided by its practitioners into two different paths: dakshinachara and vamachara, translated as Right-Hand Path and Left-Hand Path respectively. Dakshinachara consists of traditional Hindu practices such as asceticism and meditation, while vamachara also includes ritual practices that go against the grain of mainstream Hinduism, including sexual rituals, consumption of alcohol and other intoxicants, animal sacrifice, and flesh-eating. The two paths are viewed by Tantrists as equally valid approaches to enlightenment; vamachara, however, is considered to be the faster and more dangerous of the two, not suitable for all practitioners. This usage of the terms is still current in modern Tantra.

[...]

Usage in modern occultism

Today, the terms Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path are almost exclusively used by self-proclaimed followers of the Left-Hand Path, who hold varying opinions of the Right-Hand Path; some see the two Paths as equally valid approaches to truth, whose relationship is akin to the balance between Yin and Yang, while others criticize the Right-Hand Path for being too restrictive. According to the latter view, the Right-Hand Path's imposition of formal dogmas and codes of behaviour upon an individual takes away one's ability to be truly responsible for one's own life, thereby destroying a part of one's identity. According to some, this is the main difference between the two Paths: the Left-Hand Path preserves individuality, while the Right-Hand Path destroys it. Conversely, some accuse Left-Hand Path religions of narcissism while praising the Right-Hand Path for its altruism.

Right-Hand Path religions are usually said to share the following properties:

* Belief in a higher power, such as a deity.
* Obedience to the will of the higher power.
* The belief that there is an absolute definition for good and evil that applies to everyone.
* Esoteric belief in the existence of a supernatural mechanism, such as Karma, divine retribution, or Threefold Law, which causes the moral decisions that an individual makes to be reciprocated upon himself.
* The ultimate goal of having the individual consciousness be absorbed into a greater or cosmic whole.

Left-Hand Path religions are usually said to share the following properties:

* The belief that some people can, by attaining spiritual insight, themselves become akin to gods.
* The belief that selfless acts do not exist. Fulfilling one's desire is seen as a selfish act bringing the person satisfaction from accomplishing what they want. Altruism is seen as a myth created by conventional religions.
* An exoteric understanding of concepts such as karma, divine retribution, or Threefold Law, resulting in fluid, rather than strict, codes of morality.
* The belief that the individual self is preeminent, and that all decisions should be made with the goal of cultivating the self (though not the ego).
* The belief that each individual is responsible for his own happiness, and that no external force will provide salvation to reward actions which do not advance one's happiness in this life.
* The belief that the forces of the universe can be bent to one's personal will by magickal means, and that power gained in such a manner is an aid to enlightenment.
* An agnostic view of the existence of deities, or a Platonic view of deities as "first-forms." If deity is perceived as having a consciousness, then all relationships with deity are in the form of a partnership, an alliance which does not require subservience. The prideful deity likes prideful partners.

Those who believe in the existence of this dichotomy usually classify most of the established religions of the western world, as well as eastern traditions as Confucianism, as Right-Hand Path religions, while regarding some varieties of Vajrayana Buddhism and "alchemical" (as opposed to philosophical) Taoism as members of the Left-Hand Path. The virtue earned by good deeds is the means by which enlightenment may be attained. Others maintain that Mahayana and Vajrayana are purely Right-Hand Path, at least in theory. Theravada Buddhism on the basic level places a high emphasis on correct conventional behaviour in society and observance of precept (for example the patimokkha). On the higher level this basic practice is complemented with a spiritual practice which leads to enlightenment and realization of non-self. Theravada can thus be regarded as a mixture of left and right.

Such classifications are, perhaps inevitably, quite controversial; there are those who see the whole concept of classification between LHP and RHP as a modern invention resulting from excessively dualistic thinking, and therefore inapplicable to true religious traditions, or at the very least to explicitly nondual ones such as Advaita Vedanta, Taoism and Buddhism.





I thought about the LHP/RHP thing recently when using the term, would you say that the "Left Hand Path" "Right Hand Path" Dichotomy carries significance? Would you say they are flawed terms that should not even be used. Are they silly inventions of Helena Blavatsky's twisted little mind? What does the term Left or Right hand path mean to you?

Personally I see the dichotomy as another way that humans try to label things, humans love labels, and they love to make up little words for every abstract topic. Static labels on abstract topics are never completely accurate, however they do allow us humans to communicate using much less words, so sometimes I would use LHP or RHP abbreviations to help explain a thought or theory.[/quote]

[F'losrix]

I think you pretty well nailed it. The human tendency to label is a double-edged sword. Good when it helps to inform our understanding on a very general basis as a form of shorthand, bad when we assume the broad assertions attached to those labels represent absolute truths about the group so labeled or its individual members.

[wormwood]

A true mystic follows the center path. 8:)

[Korimyr the Rat]

I don't really think there's any dichotomy there. Noone can become truly selfless, and noone can be wholly obedient to another's will-- and at the same time, in order to acheive self-actualization we must recognize that we need others.

You cannot have a sense of identity without following a set of rules, and you cannot follow a set of rules without having a sense of identity.

And... if you are capable of becoming a being like unto a god, wouldn't you assume that others have already done so? Seems silly to believe oneself a god and then be agnostic about the existence of other gods.

[wormwood]

Quote: I don't really think there's any dichotomy there. Noone can become truly selfless, and noone can be wholly obedient to another's will-- and at the same time, in order to acheive self-actualization we must recognize that we need others.

You cannot have a sense of identity without following a set of rules, and you cannot follow a set of rules without having a sense of identity.

And... if you are capable of becoming a being like unto a god, wouldn't you assume that others have already done so? Seems silly to believe oneself a god and then be agnostic about the existence of other gods. Good post. The only problem is discerning who is telling the truth about what they have achieved, and in doing so, discerning whose path to follow. Do all paths ultimately lead to the same destination?

[Korimyr the Rat]

wormwood wrote: The only problem is discerning who is telling the truth about what they have achieved, and in doing so, discerning whose path to follow.

Don't listen to what a man says. Watch what he does, and try to understand what he is.

If you think that's something you want to become, then you have an example worth following. Just mind the difference between what he does and what he teaches; follow the power.

wormwood wrote: Do all paths ultimately lead to the same destination?

Certainly not. There are too many people who died forgotten, victims of their chosen master's self-destruction, to claim that all paths are equal.

[wormwood]

Quote: Don't listen to what a man says. Watch what he does, and try to understand what he is.

If you think that's something you want to become, then you have an example worth following. Just mind the difference between what he does and what he teaches; follow the power. The only problem with this is that people's deeds are often distorted, so knowing who and what they really were is impossible...most great religious prophets had completely different visions of the afterlife etc... if they were all truly as great as their legends...then how can their contradictions all be correct? I do think there was a lot of wisdom in your statement though, if the person being discussed is still alive.

Quote: Certainly not. There are too many people who died forgotten, victims of their chosen master's self-destruction, to claim that all paths are equal. If you compare a majority of religions you will see at their base they are the same. The more I study, the less differentiation I notice...I am starting to think that most religion has truth...they are just like different "grades" of faith...when you compare the 6th grade to the 12th grade which is correct...they are both correct, one just has much more detailed knowledge involved. That's my opinion anyway.

[F'losrix]

wormwood wrote: If you compare a majority of religions you will see at their base they are the same. The more I study, the less differentiation I notice...I am starting to think that most religion has truth...they are just like different "grades" of faith...when you compare the 6th grade to the 12th grade which is correct...they are both correct, one just has much more detailed knowledge involved. That's my opinion anyway.
Hmm. I would have said that perhaps they shared a common root in truth before they all went off and started adding stuff, and that most likely these modifications were extrapolations from that truth that made sense to the context of a specific culture at a specific point in time, but don't necessarily encompass a truth that is transferable to another cultural situation or sustainable over time as a culture evolves.

[wormwood]

Quote: Hmm. I would have said that perhaps they shared a common root in truth before they all went off and started adding stuff, and that most likely these modifications were extrapolations from that truth that made sense to the context of a specific culture at a specific point in time, but don't necessarily encompass a truth that is transferable to another cultural situation or sustainable over time as a culture evolves. Well, more precisely, I meant that the base is the same...only the details differ. The "who" "what" and "how" is different, but the goal is ultimately the same. Take the grade example I made (6th grade and 12th)...look at Christianity, and esoteric mysticism...one has a very simple message about how to maintain a pure spirit, and make life better...the other has very complex beliefs and rituals involving vibrations, multiple deities, and a whole host of metaphysical aspects that are too complex for many people to effectively grasp....but look at the goals...both make life better for those still living on earth...both attempt to reconnect you with God...the difference lies in details like the Christan vision of heaven (traditionally a city with Golden gates and golden streets and other garish golden decor) vs the mystic view of heaven (usually being reconnected with the being of God, and losing your own ego in the process). It is much like you said...their cultural visions of truth have seeped into the portrayal of truth of those cultures. Thus God is a "he" or a "she"...an anthropomorphic being... men will always distort the truth...but the trick is finding the pieces of truth from each culture and putting the truth back together again. 8:)

[Korimyr the Rat]

wormwood wrote: Well, more precisely, I meant that the base is the same...only the details differ. The "who" "what" and "how" is different, but the goal is ultimately the same.

I disagree, because I believe that you are confusing the "base" of a religion with its effects.

Christianity-- or its parent religion-- is not based upon "making life better", but upon (as you noted) maintaining a pure spirit and glorifying their god. Their definition of a "pure spirit" revolves almost entirely upon glorifying their god by proclaiming his virtues and living as he has instructed them.

However, when you take certain parts of Judeochristian ethics-- the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments specifically-- and look at people who generally obey them, you can see that life does, indeed, become generally better for everyone.

If you look at Wicca, I think you can see that one of its main goals is "making life better", since it focuses so heavily on reciprocity of moral behavior. However, among its goals are also becoming more attuned to the natural and spiritual world-- which I would think separate from "making life better"-- and acheiving spiritual wisdom through insight.

Either way, when people live up to the ethics of those faiths, life generally improves for them and for the people around them-- but that's a side effect of their moral beliefs and not the "goal" of the religion.

My faith stresses becoming attuned with the natural and spiritual worlds as well, and glorifying our gods... but I can't say that it's about "making life better" for everyone, the way that Christianity and Wicca do. While we are dedicated to the betterment of our communities... we're dedicated to the betterment of our communities as opposed to the betterment of all of humankind.

We can, of course, seek to better all of humankind, but our religion does not promote it. However, the code of ethics promoted by my faith-- the Nine Noble Virtues-- when followed, generally improves the lives of the people who follow it and the people around them... just as the Ten Commandments and the Threefold Law do. However, it is not a set of rules, as in the Ten Commandments, nor is it self-reinforcing, as in the Threefold Law-- and the values promoted by each are somewhat different.

wormwood wrote: ... the difference lies in details like the Christan vision of heaven (traditionally a city with Golden gates and golden streets and other garish golden decor) vs the mystic view of heaven (usually being reconnected with the being of God, and losing your own ego in the process).

Actually, a good deal of Christian theology focuses upon unity with God and surrendering the ego; Heaven is either the acheivement of this state, or the reward for having acheived it.

While my faith does place value on mysticism, it does not include the surrender of the ego or the will. We are loyal to the gods, as we are loyal to our families and our communities, but we are neither submissive nor obedient. Our wisdom and our honor-- and even our magic-- makes us more distinct, more individual, and not less.

wormwood wrote: ... but the trick is finding the pieces of truth from each culture and putting the truth back together again. 8:)

Why do you believe that "truth" is the same for each culture-- or, if it is a "universal truth", why do you believe that each culture, each spirituality, necessarily has a piece of it?

[F'losrix]

wormwood wrote: Quote: Hmm. I would have said that perhaps they shared a common root in truth before they all went off and started adding stuff, and that most likely these modifications were extrapolations from that truth that made sense to the context of a specific culture at a specific point in time, but don't necessarily encompass a truth that is transferable to another cultural situation or sustainable over time as a culture evolves. Well, more precisely, I meant that the base is the same...only the details differ. The "who" "what" and "how" is different, but the goal is ultimately the same. Take the grade example I made (6th grade and 12th)...look at Christianity, and esoteric mysticism...one has a very simple message about how to maintain a pure spirit, and make life better...the other has very complex beliefs and rituals involving vibrations, multiple deities, and a whole host of metaphysical aspects that are too complex for many people to effectively grasp....but look at the goals...both make life better for those still living on earth...both attempt to reconnect you with God...the difference lies in details like the Christan vision of heaven (traditionally a city with Golden gates and golden streets and other garish golden decor) vs the mystic view of heaven (usually being reconnected with the being of God, and losing your own ego in the process). It is much like you said...their cultural visions of truth have seeped into the portrayal of truth of those cultures. Thus God is a "he" or a "she"...an anthropomorphic being... men will always distort the truth...but the trick is finding the pieces of truth from each culture and putting the truth back together again. 8:)
What I see is a conflict between two premises; one being that real truth is encompassed by the more or less commonly shared 'goals' behind the mysticism of various religions (with the masses getting an easier to grasp, watered-down version); the other being that real truth is at the origin point of most religions and that they've moved away from that truth by incorporating cultural norms into their faith doctrines and practices, sometimes to the point where those doctrines & practices bear little resemblance to the original truths.

The only way I can see to reconcile those two ideas is to assert a third premise: that mysticism seeks to return to those original truths, but is paradoxically going about it by introducing still more complexity.

[Hecatomb]

It's informative but doesn't quite do justice.. for instance I follow alot of the rules of both pathes (about 4 each) does this make me ambidexteretous? :lol:

I think like all things, choices, politics, everything, the left/right hand path of spiritualy seperates from the two types of people..

Selfish and Selfless people..

There are good and bad sides to both types..

Selfish people want to bring freedom and enlightenment to the populace. They think through the self they can acheive mastery over thier lives.

Sefless people want to bring peace and love to the populace. By allowing themselves and perhaps convincing or even forcing others to "submit to God" they can acheive mastery over thier lives.

Both want control, that's a given, they just go about acheiving control by differant means. This is why I think it's so stupid when Satanists try to act like Muslims and Christians are so barbaric and idiotic, they want to control me and the universe too, they just go about it in a differant way. There is very little differance in the minds of men of what we want, the only varaiation is how we go about acheiving those wants, that's why all (atleast the respectable) religouns try to teach you to stop wanting, so you liberate yourself from the see-saw of life, it's like a hamster-wheel, you aint going anywhere.. freedom is subjective, and protection is fickle, so in the end BOTH the left and right hand path are going to get screwed over at some point in thier life. And they have a choice of either picking up thier peaces and starting over, or try a differant approach, or perhaps try to reach a state of mind beyond controling and more like accepting. And both right/left hand paths can do that simutanously. Because God can fufill you, and the answer lies within you..

[wormwood]

Quote: Christianity-- or its parent religion-- is not based upon "making life better", but upon (as you noted) maintaining a pure spirit and glorifying their god. Their definition of a "pure spirit" revolves almost entirely upon glorifying their god by proclaiming his virtues and living as he has instructed them.

However, when you take certain parts of Judeochristian ethics-- the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments specifically-- and look at people who generally obey them, you can see that life does, indeed, become generally better for everyone. Have you ever read "The Source" by David Michner? It is an explanation of Judaism, from an archaeologist and a Jew.... anyway, throughout the story he talks about how Judaism was not a system for creating or attaining a favorable afterlife; no, the Jewish faith was a gift from God, to make things better for this life. Just a thought on the subject at any rate.


Quote: If you look at Wicca, I think you can see that one of its main goals is "making life better", since it focuses so heavily on reciprocity of moral behavior. However, among its goals are also becoming more attuned to the natural and spiritual world-- which I would think separate from "making life better"-- and acheiving spiritual wisdom through insight. Tomato, tomato. It is not comparing one detail to another...it is pulling back and comparing every detail simultaneously. You see difference, but I see similarity... there are two most basic parts (in my mind at least)...there is the appeal to something greater than ourselves...knowing that this illusion of reality is just that...and feeling the potential for humanity to be empowered, lifted up, or generally looked after by something more...almost always this involves some form of morality, bettering ourselves seems to pertain to how we treat others...at least on a surface level (for the Christian it would be from a fear of God, for the Wiccan, a fear of their own ill intentions coming back to them...but is it not the same? If the universe is conscious or unconscious of the act, is there not still a divine order that must be followed? People turn to religion for truth and that truth almost universally involves the proper treatment of other human beings to some degree or another. The second commonality I find is in the alpha and omega. Religions explain the beginning and the end of existence...most religions agree that we were created by something, or someone, that our occurrence on this planet is not an accident or a cosmic joke. They also speculate about what happens when you die, that the journey is not over with this world. They ease the inevitability of life. But still are they not the same? For example, look at the Norse tradition vs the Greek tradition vs almost any polytheistic tradition. These are basically the same except the gods have different names and culturally relevant behavior. There are still the brothers who both wanted to be the ruler of the gods, and one gets the "underworld" (or its equivalent) instead...they have similar children and similar wives...they are all (even Hinduism) based on the Ancient Sumerian religion, which is the first recorded religion. I think we could get into a whole other thread with this debate... I should just stop right there

Quote: My faith stresses becoming attuned with the natural and spiritual worlds as well, and glorifying our gods... but I can't say that it's about "making life better" for everyone, the way that Christianity and Wicca do. Not the way they do, but there is still a morality which is culturally influenced (as the Vikings were very war-like, it wouldn't make sense if the gods meant be nice to EVERYONE...but if everyone were nice to everyone in their community, would that not be the same as the Christian vision or just about anyone else's in daily practice at least?

If we are all one material (energy condensed to a slow vibration in the words of Einstein) then could that material, that energy which is being condensed to make up all of reality, not be God if it were aware of itself? If so wouldn't that make us have God in us (or a portion anyway) as most religions claim... would being kind to God, or Gods, or even each other not all be the same to an extent...again I think I am hijacking the thread :lol:

Quote: We can, of course, seek to better all of humankind, but our religion does not promote it. However, the code of ethics promoted by my faith-- the Nine Noble Virtues-- when followed, generally improves the lives of the people who follow it and the people around them... just as the Ten Commandments and the Threefold Law do. However, it is not a set of rules, as in the Ten Commandments, nor is it self-reinforcing, as in the Threefold Law-- and the values promoted by each are somewhat different. You just demonstrated my point...there are similarities and then differences that make them more culture specific... 8:)

Quote: Actually, a good deal of Christian theology focuses upon unity with God and surrendering the ego; Heaven is either the acheivement of this state, or the reward for having acheived it. Arguably this is true of most religion to some degree.

Quote: While my faith does place value on mysticism, it does not include the surrender of the ego or the will. We are loyal to the gods, as we are loyal to our families and our communities, but we are neither submissive nor obedient. Our wisdom and our honor-- and even our magic-- makes us more distinct, more individual, and not less. What about Valhalla? What about being devoured by fire giants? Is there not still a desired connection, and a penalty for the failure of that connection? It may not seem similar to you, but it does to me. I am reminded of a Buddhist story, about the two brothers trying to achieve enlightenment...one brother was very smart and the other was very simple. The smart brother remembered all of his mantras and eventually reached enlightenment, but the simple brother could not remember the words to even the most basic mantras, so the Buddha gave him a piece of silk and told him to rub the fabric when he was in lotus and the others were saying their mantras...and the feeling of his fingers on the fabric helped him to reach enlightenment.

Quote: Why do you believe that "truth" is the same for each culture-- or, if it is a "universal truth", why do you believe that each culture, each spirituality, necessarily has a piece of it? Well first of all, truth is universal...something is either true or it isn't. I don't believe that every culture has truth, but most do. I am looking for commonality, as per my reasoning, truth will invariably show up again and again. In this context, it is easy to see the connection between most religions, and it is also easy to see where each culture has influenced the delivery of this truth to fit what they already held to be true, or to facilitate the level of understanding of their collective audience. These are all just my opinions and in no way the only opinions that count, I am just trying to explain how I arrived at the conclusions I did.

[wormwood]

Quote: What I see is a conflict between two premises; one being that real truth is encompassed by the more or less commonly shared 'goals' behind the mysticism of various religions (with the masses getting an easier to grasp, watered-down version) To an extent, yes. Think about the example of the Buddhist story from my previous post...some minds will not be satisfied with simple answers and will therefore not be able to achieve "enlightenment" by those means and the inverse is true for the complex means. Let's take the example that started this thread, LHP/RHP: We have to look to the person that pretty much vocalized and gave terminology to this line of thinking, Alister Crowley. While it is true that the LHP is seen as the more "selfish" of the two sides, look to Crowleys example of the "awakened man" ...the people of the new Aeon...they are moral without morality. Do as thou wilt, but it is also understood that each person has to reach a new level of consciousness and that the result will be a society of people that don't NEED laws, they are moral because they are of higher spiritual substance and not because they are being forced or are afraid of penalties. Obviously "Do as thou wilt" is a little too complex for some, so there is the other side which walks you step by step through a basic template of how to be good. They both achieve human beings whose awareness is focused outside of themselves, even if only temporarily.

Quote: the other being that real truth is at the origin point of most religions and that they've moved away from that truth by incorporating cultural norms into their faith doctrines and practices, sometimes to the point where those doctrines & practices bear little resemblance to the original truths. Perhaps, or perhaps the lens of culture clouds their understanding and delivery of this truth, but this is the basic idea, yes. Look at Christianity...pretty humble religion until it is assimilated by Rome, then the hedonistic bloodthirsty, and yes even paganistic culture of Rome seeped into every pore of the religion until it is almost unrecognizable. That is why a religion of love has killed so many, the understanding of it's message has been tainted by old Roman virtues.

Quote: The only way I can see to reconcile those two ideas is to assert a third premise: that mysticism seeks to return to those original truths, but is paradoxically going about it by introducing still more complexity.

I think of it as different levels of complexity, not for the sake of complexity, or to divine more truth, since mysticism itself may only be an illusion of something greater, but to appease different levels of consciousness. What some Christians except so readily and openly, I can not because to me there is glaring contradiction... I find that mystics knew things thousands of years ago that modern science is just now able to confirm...to me this satisfies my intellectual skepticism enough to allow me to read more with an open mind....it already reinforces what I believe to be true via science. But once in depth enough, you see that the mystic is not that far removed from the Christian at their cores (what they are supposed to be).


Quote: Selfish and Selfless people..

There are good and bad sides to both types..

Selfish people want to bring freedom and enlightenment to the populace. They think through the self they can acheive mastery over thier lives.

Sefless people want to bring peace and love to the populace. By allowing themselves and perhaps convincing or even forcing others to "submit to God" they can acheive mastery over thier lives. Good point on the LHP/RHP debate, they both seek to better humanity, they just have differing visions of what that entails.

[Korimyr the Rat]

wormwood wrote: If the universe is conscious or unconscious of the act, is there not still a divine order that must be followed?

Not from my own experiences. The world is morally blank-- practically a madhouse-- and the spiritual reflects the physical. There are laws, but they are more akin to the "laws" of physics than to the laws of man; they predict, but can not proscribe.

What purpose there is in this world comes from us-- from the people who live in it, from the spirits, from the gods. Any order that exists is arbitrary, as it is arbitrarily-- but necessarily-- imposed by subjective beings.

That is why, in the Dexter/Sinister dichotomy, I would be considered Sinister, for all of my good intentions and belief in firm moral principles; my good intentions and moral principles are based on the order I want to impose upon the world, and by upholding them, I am acting in accordance with my will.

wormwood wrote: What about Valhalla? What about being devoured by fire giants? Is there not still a desired connection, and a penalty for the failure of that connection?

There's a connection, but not a surrender. We are kinfolk and comrades-in-arms, but we are ourselves and the gods are theirselves. Even as we try to deepen and strengthen this connection... we are still separate. We are still individuals, even as we act in the name of kinship.

The divide between those headed for Valhalla and those headed for Hel is not moral; Niflheim is the only "punishment" afterlife, and can you really claim that an afterlife of treachery and scheming is a punishment for being treacherous and scheming in your mortal life?

wormwood wrote: Well first of all, truth is universal...something is either true or it isn't.

I think that this is the case when dealing with objective facts, but I do not believe that it can apply to moral "truths". Since spirituality is so deeply intertwined with moral beliefs... I think it is considerably murkier than you make it out to be.

Which, considering that you believe these truths to be hidden in the first place... says a lot.

wormwood wrote: These are all just my opinions and in no way the only opinions that count, I am just trying to explain how I arrived at the conclusions I did.

Do not worry about this; I do not believe you are trying to impose upon my faith. For my own interest, my questions are probative, and for your sake, they are points to consider.

[wormwood]

Quote: There are laws, but they are more akin to the "laws" of physics than to the laws of man; they predict, but can not proscribe. Yes...you got it! There is only cause and effect, and not a supreme dictation.

I'll have to write more later...good thoughts though.

[wormwood]

Quote: Not from my own experiences. The world is morally blank-- practically a madhouse-- and the spiritual reflects the physical.

When you say morally blank, do you mean the earth itself (the physical laws and phenomenon) or it's inhabitants? If you mean the people, I would like to add that 90% of the earth's population is religious...so morality seems to be the institution. Even though people will corrupt or stray from that morality, still a majority of people are good and try to do what they think is right. If you meant the world as in nature and such, it is impossible to know. Even if it seems like utter chaos to our minds, there might be a method to the madness if we had greater understanding.

If as a third option, you meant there there is no divine force, or divine laws, I would have to say there is no way to know. The only guess I could venture would be from reading the words and deeds of others who have achieved a level of divine connection. In these people the message is always very similar, and always involves peace and order. At any rate, I would say there is a divine order to life. In my opinion, this divine order has many branches, from the physical and mathematical laws, to certain moral laws. You could argue that there are no moral laws by pointing out the contemporary behavior of any number of people, but if the moral "laws" were merely set guidelines of cause and effect, behavior is negligible. If everyone is "good" life here will be like "heaven"...if everyone breaks the moral laws it will be like "hell". In essence we cause our own suffering, just as most religions predict for the afterlife. So going back to your statement, perhaps it is the physical which reflects the spiritual. 8:)

Quote: What purpose there is in this world comes from us-- from the people who live in it, from the spirits, from the gods. Any order that exists is arbitrary, as it is arbitrarily-- but necessarily-- imposed by subjective beings. Purpose is irrelevant and unknowable. Order seems to be the basis of the divine, and not as arbitrary as it may seem. Creation stories from Christianity to the Greeks agree that among the God/gods first actions was putting chaos into order.

Quote: my good intentions and moral principles are based on the order I want to impose upon the world, and by upholding them, I am acting in accordance with my will. I don't see how this is a bad thing. You said it yourself, you have "good intentions". Do you have any beliefs that are really all that different from the basic premise of peace and order? How you go about that, or what it might turn into is irrelevant. It is the purity of that instant, the initial moment of good intention that reflects moral law because it always leans toward order and the betterment of your fellow man.

Quote: There's a connection, but not a surrender.We are kinfolk and comrades-in-arms, but we are ourselves and the gods are theirselves. Even as we try to deepen and strengthen this connection... we are still separate. We are still individuals, even as we act in the name of kinship.
Semantics. Varying degrees of the same vision. There is still a "reconnection" in the afterlife.


Quote: The divide between those headed for Valhalla and those headed for Hel is not moral; Ok my Norse is a little rusty, but isn't your final destination determined by how you die? Valhalla is for warriors who die in battle, and Hel is for normal people? Don't the warriors in Valhalla have to fight in ragnorok (sorry about the spelling)? Could this be connected to the concept of karma, or you reap what you sow? There is still a continuation of soul that is determined by the life you lead.

Quote: Niflheim is the only "punishment" afterlife, and can you really claim that an afterlife of treachery and scheming is a punishment for being treacherous and scheming in your mortal life? Yes, if EVERYONE else there is going to be treacherous and scheming...that would be terrible...it would be like L.A. :lol:

Quote: I think that this is the case when dealing with objective facts, but I do not believe that it can apply to moral "truths". I disagree. I think that there are certain moral laws, which can be broken, but with the predicted consequence of suffering. And there are moral "truths" which govern these moral laws(which were laws of cause and effect for the sake of this argument).

Quote: Since spirituality is so deeply intertwined with moral beliefs... I think it is considerably murkier than you make it out to be.

Which, considering that you believe these truths to be hidden in the first place... says a lot. I didn't say it was going to be blatant. I have just been doing a lot of reading about various religions and it started to seem like puzzle pieces. Like you had to understand portions of one faith to fully comprehend portions of another. I haven't quite got the puzzle figured out, but when I do I will be sure to post it here so you can player hate some more. 8:)

Quote: Do not worry about this; I do not believe you are trying to impose upon my faith. For my own interest, my questions are probative, and for your sake, they are points to consider. Your input is appreciated; if I can't figure out what the answer is, I can at least know what it's not :lol:

[Korimyr the Rat]

wormwood wrote: When you say morally blank, do you mean the earth itself (the physical laws and phenomenon) or it's inhabitants?

Primarily the physical laws and phenomenon, but that does include its inhabitants. Yes, they're primarily religious, and primarily moral-- but their religions and their morals are not unified and consistent. They can come pretty close when you have a small group of people with a tight society, but taken as a whole there's no overriding purpose.

wormwood wrote: If you meant the world as in nature and such, it is impossible to know. Even if it seems like utter chaos to our minds, there might be a method to the madness if we had greater understanding.

Perhaps. I do not think it particularly likely.

wormwood wrote: The only guess I could venture would be from reading the words and deeds of others who have achieved a level of divine connection. In these people the message is always very similar, and always involves peace and order.

And yet, their vision of peace and order is nearly always dependent upon their divinity.

I believe that the words and deeds of these people-- or their divine connection itself-- is merely the attempts of their gods (or maybe themselves) to impose a desirable order upon the universe. They're trying to draw people to them, to increase their power and influence, so that they may achieve their goals.

I've known people who've made spiritual connections to entities that are far less benign in both their intentions and their methods.

wormwood wrote: So going back to your statement, perhaps it is the physical which reflects the spiritual. 8:)

I wasn't trying to suggest a causal relationship... only a similarity. You can certainly change the physical world through manipulation of the spiritual world.

wormwood wrote: Creation stories from Christianity to the Greeks agree that among the God/gods first actions was putting chaos into order.

Only among those that hold that the gods were creators of the universe-- or, at least, the first creations.

This also might simply be a reflection of the desirability of order, from the human perspective.

wormwood wrote: I don't see how this is a bad thing. You said it yourself, you have "good intentions".

I don't see it as a bad thing, either. The important thing to me seems that you can not draw a moral distinction on the basis of Path, or on the grounds that one expresses one's Will or surrenders it to another.

The problem is, I don't think we can objectively draw any distinction between moral and immoral; we can only choose what we find desirable or undesirable, and then act accordingly.

wormwood wrote: Do you have any beliefs that are really all that different from the basic premise of peace and order?

Somewhat. We must be strong to impose order, and we must impose order before we can maintain peace.

But we must struggle to become strong. Peace leads to stagnation, which leads to weakness, which leads to the collapse of order-- chaos. Chaos forces us to struggle, which makes us strong, which allows us to impose order.

It's a paradox which I have been unable to reconcile, because in order for us to remain strong-- which is necessary for goodness-- we must have evil to oppose.

wormwood wrote: Valhalla is for warriors who die in battle, and Hel is for normal people? Don't the warriors in Valhalla have to fight in ragnorok (sorry about the spelling)? Could this be connected to the concept of karma, or you reap what you sow?

I'm pretty sure we're all going to fight in Ragnarok-- or at least be civilians trapped in the war zone-- regardless of whether we died the battle-death or the straw-death. I think it is even regardless of which gods we revere or whether we revere gods at all, but our faiths shall surely influence whose side of the battle we shall be on.

I take your point, however.

wormwood wrote: I disagree. I think that there are certain moral laws, which can be broken, but with the predicted consequence of suffering.

But, back to my earlier point... suffering is necessary. "Sweat in the drill hall saves blood on the battlefield" and so forth.

And I think there is sufficient evidence of people who've broken "moral laws" and caused tremendous amounts of suffering... for other people. I don't accept your notion of Karma, so I cannot say that they are necessarily punished in the afterlife.

After all, why would they be punished by a god whose cause they've advanced?

wormwood wrote: I haven't quite got the puzzle figured out, but when I do I will be sure to post it here so you can player hate some more. 8:)

Think of it this way: I'm forcing you to improve your understanding of spiritual truths in order to refute me. I'm making your arguments stronger. ;)

[wormwood]

Quote: Primarily the physical laws and phenomenon, but that does include its inhabitants. Yes, they're primarily religious, and primarily moral-- but their religions and their morals are not unified and consistent. They can come pretty close when you have a small group of people with a tight society, but taken as a whole there's no overriding purpose. So if people are primarily moral, and primarily religious, then there are only varying degrees of morality, and not the "madhouse" some might suspect. The overriding purpose would be making life bearable. On the one hand you have been created so there is a sense of purpose, and when you die the journey will continue, and on the other hand there are rules in place that teach you how to deal fairly with other people ensure stability and ORDER in society. If this is the way most of the world is, then there must be some reason. There must be something that appeals to the very nature of our humanity.

Quote: Perhaps. I do not think it particularly likely. Hence the "if we had a greater understanding" clause. No, it does not seem likely, but perhaps that is the way it is supposed to appear. Think about the story of Lucifer. He was God's right hand man, the most perfect and intelligent of creation. Lucifer had access to most knowledge, and what did he do? He rebels against God...most knowledge is not always enough, sometimes we need ALL knowledge to see things clearly. It is in the realm of possibility is all I can say for sure.

Quote: And yet, their vision of peace and order is nearly always dependent upon their divinity. In what capacity?

Quote: I believe that the words and deeds of these people-- or their divine connection itself-- is merely the attempts of their gods (or maybe themselves) to impose a desirable order upon the universe. They're trying to draw people to them, to increase their power and influence, so that they may achieve their goals. Who is trying to draw who? The people or the gods? Because if you meant the people were trying to draw people to them to accomplish their goals, I would like to point out that those goals are often selfless. Look at Buddha, a man with many mythical claims made about him, but what did he really try to do? He gave up wealth and power to become a prophet, so those were not his goals. His only aim seemed to be easing the suffering of the world. If you meant that his gods were using him to gather people and influence, the only result has been a primarily peaceful religion which has demonstrated the verifiable power of some of it's tenets (such as through the shaolin monks), but has not used that power to gain influence or wealth. And regardless of who is generating this message, since most of these prophets say it was God who told them, the fact remains that there is always a message of peace and order.

Quote: I've known people who've made spiritual connections to entities that are far less benign in both their intentions and their methods.
This is where it gets tricky, and why I think so many people have a hard time with TRUE monotheism. If there are positive forces acting on us, there must also be negative forces...Christianity can not reconcile this with an all loving God, so they have Satan to embody the negative. Jews are the only people to my knowledge to ever successfully practice monotheism, and this is accomplished because their God was not all loving, but every emotion. If there is one God and he created everything, then he created suffering, and deviation from morality as well...this leads to the obvious question of why, and it comes back to us....it's about choice. So in one scenario there is an incoming projection of positive and negative forces, and in another scenario there are only reflections of the projections we make. Both could be true.

Quote: Only among those that hold that the gods were creators of the universe-- or, at least, the first creations.

This also might simply be a reflection of the desirability of order, from the human perspective. True. But it is a prevalent theme in many many traditions. What is the origin story of your particular religion?

Quote: I don't see it as a bad thing, either. The important thing to me seems that you can not draw a moral distinction on the basis of Path, or on the grounds that one expresses one's Will or surrenders it to another. You sound like you are starting to come around 8:) Why base a moral distinction on Path, if all paths are intertwined around some cosmically true center path?

Quote: The problem is, I don't think we can objectively draw any distinction between moral and immoral; we can only choose what we find desirable or undesirable, and then act accordingly. Morality, in it's most basic form, would be about respect...respect others and respect yourself. Do not commit actions which will cause harm or negative consequence for other people.

Quote: Somewhat. We must be strong to impose order, and we must impose order before we can maintain peace.
But we must struggle to become strong. Peace leads to stagnation, which leads to weakness, which leads to the collapse of order-- chaos. Chaos forces us to struggle, which makes us strong, which allows us to impose order.
It's a paradox which I have been unable to reconcile, because in order for us to remain strong-- which is necessary for goodness-- we must have evil to oppose. There is still, at it's base, a struggle between order (good) and chaos (evil). The desired result is peace and order...remember I said how you go about that, or what it might turn into is irrelevant. There is still a concept of the universal good which is order. The message becomes culturally relevant and loses some of it's clarity.

Quote: But, back to my earlier point... suffering is necessary. "Sweat in the drill hall saves blood on the battlefield" and so forth. Yes, sadly suffering seems to define our existence. There are many directions I could take this, but I will say only this: if there was no battlefield, there would be no reason to drill. If other humans didn't cause us to suffer, we wouldn't have to. But at the same time, that chaos of battle gives balance to the order of society...so perhaps it is a naturally occurring current of positive and negative forces as well.

Quote: And I think there is sufficient evidence of people who've broken "moral laws" and caused tremendous amounts of suffering... for other people. I don't accept your notion of Karma, so I cannot say that they are necessarily punished in the afterlife. Yes, sadly the law of cause and effect does not always directly go to the person who deserves to suffer. But, if you contribute to the suffering of society, then you are to blame for your own suffering within that society. Also, I have never really known of anyone who did anything terrible and didn't receive some form of punishment...with the exception of Jack the Ripper, but he probably had many mental demons to fight making it hard to gage his actual suffering. Again, I do not have a complete knowledge on the subject so it would be hard for me to say how just the universe can be.

[Korimyr the Rat]

wormwood wrote: So if people are primarily moral, and primarily religious, then there are only varying degrees of morality...

I think you mistake my meaning. Morality does not differ by degree, quantitatively, it differs by values, qualitiatively. When I say most people are moral, I mean that most of them live up to the moral standards they set for themselves.

Only the truly devout members of the Abrahamic faiths regularly fail to uphold their morals-- and that is because their moral standards are so high and they believe that it is impossible to acheive them. They're also generally much better at upholding the standards of their faith than the people who are less committed-- with certain notable exceptions.

The "madhouse" is created not by people failing to live up to their standards, but by people holding their own moral standards and then upholding them.

wormwood wrote: The overriding purpose would be making life bearable.

Only for themselves-- and then, everyone has different standards of "bearable".

wormwood wrote: On the one hand you have been created so there is a sense of purpose...

I know the purpose for which I was created. I would like to live up to it, but I can't do that without destroying who I am in the process.

Besides, my purpose for me is more important. That purpose, however, is personal and self-imposed.

wormwood wrote: If this is the way most of the world is, then there must be some reason. There must be something that appeals to the very nature of our humanity.

Here, I would say, look to the Great Apes. They have hierarchy, belonging, and rules. If you examine them closely, you can even see that they have language and culture.

So it is with humanity; we desire these things because we have evolved to do so. They are also the basis of everything we have acheived in society-- but our acheivements are the result of order, and not the motivation behind it.

wormwood wrote: Lucifer ... rebelled against God...most knowledge is not always enough, sometimes we need ALL knowledge to see things clearly.

Do you think he was wrong? Do you worship the god that Lucifer turned his back on-- and do you think that you are unconditionally obligated to obeying that god?

wormwood wrote: It is in the realm of possibility is all I can say for sure.

Certainly. Without proof to the contrary, we can only rely on witness testimony-- and unless divinely inspired ourselves, hearsay testimony at best.

Korimyr the Rat wrote: And yet, their vision of peace and order is nearly always dependent upon their divinity.
wormwood wrote: In what capacity?

Ask a Christian if peace and order are possible without their god. Ask a Hindu if peace and order are possible in defiance of dharma.

Only humanists believe in a secular peace-- and even then, they demand that we uphold their moral principles to acheive it.

wormwood wrote: Who is trying to draw who? The people or the gods?

Yes. Without being able to observe the gods, I cannot verify the peoples' claims to divine inspiration. I think, in most cases, that they draw each other.

wormwood wrote: Because if you meant the people were trying to draw people to them to accomplish their goals, I would like to point out that those goals are often selfless.

So? You need power to acheive good as well as evil. You can use power to help others as easily as you can help yourself-- except that it's harder to tell what kind of help others need.

wormwood wrote: Look at Buddha, a man with many mythical claims made about him, but what did he really try to do? He gave up wealth and power to become a prophet, so those were not his goals. His only aim seemed to be easing the suffering of the world.

He sacrificed temporal power in exchange for spiritual power-- and the power of moral sympathy.

And in the process of easing the suffering of others, he won followers who promoted his goals-- followers who are still doing so today, centuries later. Is that not power?

Hell, is that not more power than that wielded by Presidents and robber-barons? Their power largely dies with them; noone lives their lives by the teachings of a President or a CEO.

wormwood wrote: ... but has not used that power to gain influence or wealth.

Is not the Dalai Lama both powerful and wealthy? On a smaller scale, there are self-proclaimed gurus who use Buddhist teachings-- selectively, granted-- to assume psychological control over gullible people and bilk them of their life savings.

I'll admit, Buddhists don't often use their faith to justify atrocities-- but there's a long history of governments using Buddhism to justify tolerating atrocities.

wormwood wrote: And regardless of who is generating this message, since most of these prophets say it was God who told them, the fact remains that there is always a message of peace and order.

Granted... but the message is still their peace and order, and most religions place their founders in positions of wealth and power-- even if it is only the petty power of a handful of scared children waiting for the FBI to burn down their house.

wormwood wrote: ... this leads to the obvious question of why, and it comes back to us... it's about choice.

Either that, or monotheism is nothing more than the megalomaniacal rantings of a god worshipped by a tribe of primitive desert herdsmen.

After all, gods aren't always honest.

wormwood wrote: So in one scenario there is an incoming projection of positive and negative forces, and in another scenario there are only reflections of the projections we make. Both could be true.

Indeed, both could be true concurrently-- if you omit the word "only" from the latter option. After all, each and every one of us makes impressions on everyone else we come into contact with; why would it be different for the gods?

wormwood wrote: What is the origin story of your particular religion?

A giant cow licked a snowball. Seriously. Much later, Odin created humanity by feeling sorry for a couple of trees and hanging his clothes on them.

I figure the gods just weren't around when the world was created, so when humans asked them how it got here, they all just made something up. It's as good an explanation as any for why creation myths are so varied.

Not sure about the creation of humanity. For one thing, I'm not entirely certain that the gods predate homo sapiens sapiens, and for another, I'm not sure how much of a role they had in our development.

wormwood wrote: Why base a moral distinction on Path, if all paths are intertwined around some cosmically true center path?

Why draw any moral distinctions at all, when morality is just an arbitrary extension of primate pack behavior instincts?

My moral distinctions are based entirely on whether or not I believe that a person-- or his actions-- is promoting the moral values that I believe in. It is only because my moral values revolve primarily around the betterment of other people that I am not considered "evil"-- and there are plenty of people in this world who believe that I am.

A good number of those people have come to that conclusion after speaking with me; most of them just assume that I am on the basis of groups that I belong to.

wormwood wrote: Morality, in it's most basic form, would be about respect... respect others and respect yourself.

Respect must be earned. Can you respect a man who destroys everything he touches, and that violates every principles of decency that you hold dear?

I can't, unless he's honest and unapologetic about it. And even then, my respect for him would not cause me to waver in my moral obligation to kill him.

wormwood wrote: Do not commit actions which will cause harm or negative consequence for other people.

Can't be helped. It's a law of nature: no living being survives, save through the suffering and death of other living being. We can exempt other people from this process, of course, but the definition of "people" is pretty arbitrary; just look at how much it has changed in Western society over the last three centuries.

Even then, merely upholding our own individuality and our own dignity is going to hurt some people. Wouldn't your parents have rather preferred that you attend law school or medical school? Haven't you ended a few intimate relationships because they weren't working out for you?

And, of course, there is the morally necessary hurting of people that are hurting you and yours.

wormwood wrote: There is still, at it's base, a struggle between order (good) and chaos (evil).

How can chaos be evil, if it is necessary for goodness?

wormwood wrote: If other humans didn't cause us to suffer, we wouldn't have to.

But if we didn't suffer, we would be weak-- if not extinct. Hell... we need to suffer in order to understand suffering, in order to avoid inflicting it upon others.

wormwood wrote: But, if you contribute to the suffering of society, then you are to blame for your own suffering within that society.

If we all contribute to the suffering of society, and we all experience the suffering of society-- and the two are not proportionate to each other-- then what is the point of blaming anyone for it?

You could seek to relieve the suffering of others, but the world isn't going to reward you for it. You would be doing it solely for personal satisfaction, and there are many ways of achieving that.

wormwood wrote: Again, I do not have a complete knowledge on the subject so it would be hard for me to say how just the universe can be.

Of course. My own statements on this matter are little more than guesses, based upon my own experiences; you shouldn't give them any more credit than that.

However, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that our universe is even slightly just, or unjust, or that it operates according to any moral principles whatsoever. Morally, the universe is a blank slate-- and we, as sentient beings, have two options concerning it: we can either pretend that there is already order upon it, or we can recognize it for what it is and seek to impose order upon it ourselves.

I have made my decision.