Is the RHP a myth?

  • 68 Replies
  • 2761 Views
*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Is the RHP a myth?
« on: February 09, 2020, 01:59:49 pm »
There is supposedly a trajectory known as the RHP, which could be summarized as seeking to stop being a singularity and start being a zero so infinity can be experienced and enabled, a state of being I'll call "dissolution into the All."

Every definition I've ever seen has been variously worded but conceptually the same as above. But has anyone ever met someone who actually wanted to dissolve into the All?

There would seem to be two categories for consideration:
1. Religionists
2. Occultists

Religionists
Some Buddhists will claim they want to dissolve into the All (or just dissolve and be nothing) but they reek of self-deceit. What they want is to WANT dissolution. And so they try to prove it by sitting around with empty heads. Still, for all their puffery, Buddhists come the closest to exhibiting the RHP ideal. Rank and file Christians and Muslims absolutely do not, although some exceptional schizophrenics of the Catholic or Muslim persuasion have appeared to actually want (and maybe even experience) dissolution. The Catholic schizophrenics tended to be canonized. Meanwhile, the average Catholic (or Christian in general) just wants a Get Out of Hell Free card, while the average Muslim (male) just wants his 72 virgins. I think rank and file Hindus want to reincarnate as Jeff Bezos. (It's certainly possible to find Hindu writings that extol dissolution. I just don't think the average Hindu reads them.) 

Occultists
Apparently Crowley wrote about dissolution into the All but I don't believe for a second that he actually pursued it. He was too busy getting laid. I think certain components of what he wrote were Lesser Black Magic aimed at establishing and maintaining his guru status. Although I guess he might have perceived dissolution into the All as the ultimate orgasm. I can believe he pursued the ultimate orgasm. The old goat.

A great deal of occultism that might be called, by some, RHP, had its origin in Blavatsky's Theosophy, which did not teach dissolution into the All. She was the source of the Ascended Master current, which is the pursuit of power through virtue.

I think the RHP as typically defined is largely a myth, perpetuated because it makes very clear what the LHP most definitely is not. Thoughts?

Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2020, 04:22:47 pm »
Perennial philosophy is the understanding that the 'RHP' religions share a single, universal doctrine. This doctrine posits that the highest good that human life can achieve is through the union with a Supreme Being / Energy of the Universe. The way in which this is achieved is through the deception of one's conscious awareness into believing that one has been accepted by this Supreme Being/Energy/All otherwise known as the objective universe.

This is not the stance one takes on the Western LHP, the objective universe is seen as it plainly is, a non-conscious, unintelligent memetic mechanism composed of Time, Space & Matter. To absolve one's self into this is antithetic to the Western LHP goals of individuation and autotheism.

You have the right to believe whatever you want in regards to Crowley, however, those whom Crowley terms "the Black Brothers" failed to attain the rank of Magister Templi, and did not destroy their ego while crossing the Abyss. In his system when the adept crosses the abyss, he must surrender everything, including his Self and his Holy Guardian Angel, and leap into the Abyss, and if his ego or self is completely destroyed, he becomes a “babe of the abyss”.

*

Mindmaster

  • ****
  • 271
  • Theistic Satanist
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2020, 06:26:16 pm »
There is supposedly a trajectory known as the RHP, which could be summarized as seeking to stop being a singularity and start being a zero so infinity can be experienced and enabled, a state of being I'll call "dissolution into the All."

Re: Hindu's -- It's thousands of religions pretending to be one and for the ideas one school or guru teaches the other teaches the complete and total opposite. Nothing is really more schizophrenic than that. :D

Anyway, the RHP doesn't have to follow the same metaphysical / cosmological understandings to qualify as being exactly that. It's more about "culturally accepted practices" and baked-in ethics.

Generally:

1) The RHP limits itself to social acceptable practices. (Mass, Prayer, etc.) If occultism is explored it is explored only in the manner that is the most friendly to this worldview. (For example, using names of angels and the names of God to work white magick.) It would still be pretty taboo to approach the occult subjects, but if it was done in the way that is mindful to the belief system it's generally accepted. (There are plenty of schools of Christian mystics doing exactly this... etc)

2) The "psycho-spiritual view" is that there is a mind, body, and soul and that they separate things that interact. Most of these religions will hold a view that "mind and body" are inferior pieces of the puzzle as well, since they "die" with the flesh.

3) There is a cosmic boogeyman that enforces the dogma of the religion. Whether it be karma, sin, or a "threefold law" that is the impetus for triggering the ire of the sky daddy/mommy/etc.

That doesn't include a state of "oneness" for the most part as you can see especially due to the complexity of addressing that issue on point #2. In most cases, that view propagated by smaller cloistered groups of monks associated with the main religion -- not the lay people themselves. (as you've noted) So, "on the record", these concepts are generally not part of the theological understanding of these religions. (But, small sects within the overall religion will have these ideas.)

Anyway, that's about as simple as I can try to explain it. At least, in the context of what are "mandatory features" of the RHP.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2020, 06:28:41 pm by Mindmaster »

*

Melias

  • *
  • 146
  • Non Omnis Moriar - Embracing the Aeon of XOR
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2020, 06:32:12 pm »
This is an excellent discussion and valid points have been raised. My take on this is this:

Ego dissolution as an end-point is not the same as subduing one's egotistical urges, or self-annihilation. Ego dissolution seems totally crazy as a goal. Subduing one's egotistical urges comes into play with Compassion in buddhists, Love to christians etc. This is relevant to whatever ideas they have on morality and ethics, because it cannot exist outside of context. Clearly they obey (if they even do that) to their own moral imperatives. As for self-annihilation, this can make sense only when one accepts a deeper part of Self, outside of time as we know it. Whether you call it soul, Essence, kernel of the inner matrix or whatever title you ascribe to it, it is assumed by the RHP that this is preserved while the everyday self (ego) can go to pieces or be destroyed at the end of the current life. This idea is not just a monotheistic fabrication; it is even met in ancient Egypt in that there was an element of the soul (KA or BA according to differing definitions) that is immortal and endures death without perishing. So even if the ordinary self perishes, that part remains whole until it is born again. Whether you believe in reincarnation or not, the idea still stands. Unless of course it reaches an end-point (morally bad or morally good) and goes past the Duat into Amemait (devoured by it) if the heart (ab) is impure, or if it reaches the Blessed Fields of A'aru (Reeds) respectively.
That is the only way I understand some sense of self-annihilation, but I would certainly not choose such wording for this process.

I agree with most of the points posted above. Yes, the RHP is mostly on being accepted into merging with the One, whereas LHP normally goes about individualism and self-ascendance through power and becoming (xeper) and manifesting in this world, with all your inner talents. This could lead to autotheism in some cases, but clearly not everyone would have the resolve, the tenacity or the will to pursue this past Thaumiel and the 11th. 

In any case, I'm not extremely knowledgeable on Crowley; I have read a couple of books on his life (not occult books) and if what is said is true, then by all means he didn't know what he was talking about (or maybe he did, but his followers in A.A. etc failed to understand him). His overindulgence in substances and overtly sexual infatuation may have been a thing back in the Victorian times but nowadays nobody would be stirred. I believe he was a true pioneer in certain areas who ultimately wasted his talents when he lost his way with the whole Aiwass thing and the coming Aeon. Which followed after the incident with his HGA being the "Beast". If he truly was an Avatar of the Beast, he wouldn't need opium to achieve altered states and he wouldn't be so critical of the ego/self of those that weren't crushed by the Abyss. In other words, there's some misleading stuff and / or hypocricy, take your pick.

Theosophy started well with the power through virtue thing as they defined it, however both the inclusion of heavily borrowed terms from the Indian scripture plus the whole issue with Ariosophy and its involvement with the Thule Society caused ripples. When Krisnamurti absonded, rejecting his grooming as the new world teacher, that ship kinda sunk.



*

Kapalika

  • *****
  • 675
  • Someone's Succubus Queen ♡
    • View Profile
    • My Music and Blog
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2020, 12:06:20 am »
Mind master said everything I would of wanted to say but much more concisely and to the point. Giving his post two horns up.
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Kashmir Shaivism via Vāmācāra

"We have none but evidence for the prosecution [against Satan] and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is un-American; it is French." ... "We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents." - Mark Twain
"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo

*

Onyx

  • O.S. Co-Founder
  • *
  • 935
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2020, 02:14:17 pm »
My only thought is that I use the terms LHP/RHP rather loosely to contrast the difference between self-directed religions and conventional ones based on saviors.

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2020, 02:53:37 pm »
So what is emerging on this forum is a definition of RHP that is more complex than the simplistic (and mostly false) one that is typically cited. Does this also imply a definition of LHP that is symmetrically complex?

RHP
Socially accepted practices
Body/mind/soul - which apparently, at least for Mindmaster and Kapalika, does not apply to LHP
Moral universe ("cosmic bogeyman")
Caring universe ("cosmic savior")

LHP
Taboo practices
(apparently some view of the self that contradicts body/mind/soul)
Amoral universe (no "cosmic bogeyman")
Uncaring universe (no "cosmic savior")

I personally subscribe to body/mind/soul so I look forward to learning what Mindmaster and Kapalika subscribe to. As for the other three dichotomies, I agree 100 percent.

I also have an additional dichotomy that I consider fundamental:

RHP
Collectivism ("Onward Christian Soldiers")

LHP
Self-centeredness

This latter dichotomy is probably why so many occultists mindlessly accept the simplistic (and mostly false) definition typically cited for RHP - but there's a vast difference between the Church as Body of Christ (or the Muslim Umma or the State of Israel) versus dissolving the ego. Also, the fucking Nazis and the dickhead KKK are collectivist, and they certainly don't aim at dissolution of the ego.

The LHP is self-centered. To me, that's bedrock.

*

idgo

  • ****
  • 437
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2020, 06:16:06 pm »
I personally think there exists a sort of "suicide of the will" -- a state of despair in which one cries "I cannot think any more, I cannot choose any more, think and choose for me. I cannot reason any more, I can no longer face the horrors that might result if I mis-choose my own philosophy. I cannot carry the crushing weight of the consequences of freely made decisions any farther, carry it for me." And well they might cry so, for no-one can be forced to take on the burden of effort that's required to to build the knowledge and skill to forge their own path and to do it well.

I see conventional RHP as a net to catch people interested in discarding the burden of Will in this way, and to shepherd those who for whatever reason can't or don't develop their Wills beyond the default potential-for-will which most are born with.

Society needs RHP to be itself, for better or worse. Today's society seems to me to be built on the premise that advanced personal work on spiritual development is strictly optional; if we took away the easy out of pre-chewed spiritual food from mama bird Church and forced everyone to hunt and clean their own doctrines in the wild, there'd be far less time and effort to go round for the things which require huge investments of that spare time and effort to keep things ticking.

*

Mindmaster

  • ****
  • 271
  • Theistic Satanist
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2020, 07:24:10 pm »

Body/mind/soul - which apparently, at least for Mindmaster and Kapalika, does not apply to LHP



To be clear, LHP can believe in "mind/body/soul" it's just in LHP understandings of that subject none of the parts are "better" than the others. Rather they are seen as contiguous or simply "onion layers" of being. Thus, the LHP'er will might accept that these things exist but doesn't forsake any portion as being impure or imply that being worldly is a less favorable condition than being spiritual. For our spiritually-minded LHP'er there is no "sin" or "vice" attached to these concepts. Which is just about the exact opposite understanding of the RHP belief systems. :D

*

Mindmaster

  • ****
  • 271
  • Theistic Satanist
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2020, 07:30:04 pm »
My only thought is that I use the terms LHP/RHP rather loosely to contrast the difference between self-directed religions and conventional ones based on saviors.

You could look it at that way, but there are certainly RHP religions/belief systems that do not incorporate the concept of a savior at all. Certainly, there is a rote dogma to most of these systems but I don't particularly feel that is a necessary requirement. For example, there are many non-denominational "solo" Christians that do not go to church or accept it as an authority. They will pray to God, but never see a preacher or priest. :D (These types are quite on the rise, recently, btw. Due to all the scandals.) I still feel they are living via a Christian concept of acceptable norms/ethics/etc, so they're still RHP as all hell -- but, that dividing line is getting rather blurry.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 11:05:30 pm by Mindmaster »

*

Mindmaster

  • ****
  • 271
  • Theistic Satanist
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2020, 08:12:35 pm »
Society needs RHP to be itself, for better or worse. Today's society seems to me to be built on the premise that advanced personal work on spiritual development is strictly optional; if we took away the easy out of pre-chewed spiritual food from mama bird Church and forced everyone to hunt and clean their own doctrines in the wild, there'd be far less time and effort to go round for the things which require huge investments of that spare time and effort to keep things ticking.

Society is built on a paradigm of social norms and ethics, but it's like anything it's the rules that are written down on paper -- not necessarily the one's we have to play by.

But, I view your opinion as really idealistic on this subject. We're past the point with the major world religions where they don't have to bother to make any sense - 20%+ of the population is too dumb to know or care and just automatically accepts it. However, don't even limit this to religion -- it's true on everything from social norms, politics, or anything else. :D

Is there really a difference between a staunch Atheist or Christian? I find none. Is there a difference between a left wing nutter and a right wing nutter? I find none. All of them closed their minds -- they're all equally retarded. What's funny is some of them actually think they're smarter than one another... That's the real giggle... :D

Anyway, I find it amusing because I have to or I'd be sad. How's that for a truth bomb? These people simply do not have the capacity for leaving the warm embrace of the herd. They never will and it doesn't matter if the grass is greener on the other side either.. They're going to stand in place and die there. If one of the herd members farts, they just breathe deeper... :D
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 08:18:59 pm by Mindmaster »

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2020, 09:15:06 pm »
So here we have another proposed dichotomy:

RHP
Let others think for them

LHP
Think for themselves

I'm not sure I buy it, however. Sure, there are a lot of RHP folks who let others think for them, and there are a lot of LHP folks who think for themselves. But I could do RHP without ever referencing the New Testament, the Quran, or the Tanakh. I could convince myself, through my own, original thought processes, that we live in a moral, caring universe, and therefore collectivism, legalism, and copycatting make sense. I would be an RH practitioner who thinks for himself.

I could also do LHP without ever doing anything EXCEPT reference The Satanic Bible. I could thump that bible ten times a day. Taking LaVey as my guru, I could offer my mind to him and let him fashion it in his image. I could obediently take on board, untested, the idea that we live in an amoral, uncaring universe, and therefore egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity make sense. I would be an LH practitioner who lets others think for me.

What I'm saying here is, thinking for oneself is a meta-path, transcending the left and right hands.

I'll go one step further. I would rather spend time with an RH practitioner who thinks for himself, than with an LH practitioner who doesn't. My first allegiance is to the meta-path of thinking for oneself.

Now of course it's true that thinking for oneself naturally aligns with egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity. It's unnatural for a genuinely independent thinker to arrive at the conclusion that collectivism, legalism, and copycatting are the highest path. But unnatural and impossible are two different things. This brings us to the question of self-deceit.

Can collectivism, legalism, and copycatting be embraced without self-deceit? I'm still pondering that one.

*

Melias

  • *
  • 146
  • Non Omnis Moriar - Embracing the Aeon of XOR
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2020, 07:45:12 am »
Closed minds is regarded as a detriment to all thinking people, nothing to do with RHP and LHP. In every avenue of life, in every spiritual path, there are idiots thinking they know it all; then there are others who submit to "authoritative sources/ gurus" as paragons and exemplars of that path, and live their life as followers and worshippers... finally there's another part that is socially inept / or with handicap in thought processes, understanding and communicating. I'm not referring to medical conditions, but to those who suffered from poor education in combination with bad upbringing. A lot of negative states will formulate responses hostile to any true seeker. And for me, to be in a spiritual path is to be a seeker. Otherwise, all else is futile.

Socrates once said, "the  unexamined life is not worth living".
Of course nowadays people opt to follow trends and cult figures, so nobody cares much about such stuff... but the antinomianism and the desire for Liberty ought to make someone on the LHP re-evaluate themselves, in order to keep growing. Say a person grows up in a community of Bible-bashers and christian fanatics who blame everything not sanctioned by the Church as satanic / evil. And this person learns to meditate and to do yoga, for example. As soon as the others find out, they preach to him about the dangers to his immortal soul and all sorts of crap. Now,if that person maintains an open mind he should be like an agnostic - in other words, not completely sure about the validity of either state. S/he tells them meditation is cool and that there's nothing to fear from yoga, because s/he tried it. It works and it didn't cause any issues. The others though will be adamant that s/he is wrong, and will continue persecuting. So here an important distinction must be made: if something is confirmed through extensive personal experience, it can be safely assumed that the person may use it successfully as an axiomatic paradigm to live with. To continue to keep an open mind with regards to something that you've already proven numerous times is counter-productive. It also robs you of the certainty you need on which you can set foundations in order to challenge other ideas. Of course, the key word is confirmation; consistent proof is vital, with any bias carefully monitored and screened out.

Now what if someone gets blamed for having a closed mind simply because s/he is not like the others s/he associates with? Imagine if they value non-conformity and if they have idealized non-acceptance of any truth because in their minds that equates with having a closed mind!

With regards to thinking for oneself vs herd mentality, I do remember some quote from one of the Founding Fathers: it is your moral duty to disobey immoral laws.
of course, here we go with regards of what defines an immoral law. And what measures are taken to amend it within society, rather than have full blown anarchy.

If the social norms and ethics have been reduced to forced compliance (like in a dictatorship), self-deceit might be the only way for someone to continue living in such a demeaning world. Because the revelation of such truth will either cause a person become a rebel (Neo joins Morpheus and the Nebuchadnezzar crew, Evie joins forces with V, etc) or end up with a nervous breakdown / depression / insanity. Either way his or her life will be at risk, and very few people indeed are ready to take on that level of a challenge.

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2020, 11:27:47 am »
This will harmonize with some of what Melias just posted...

In my most recent post to this thread, I posed this question: Can collectivism, legalism, and copycatting be embraced without self-deceit? I realize I should be asking four questions:

1. Can collectivism, legalism, and copycatting be embraced without self-deceit?
2. Can self-deceit enable collectivism, legalism, and copycatting?
3. Can egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity be embraced without self-deceit?
4. Can self-deceit enable egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity?

To answer "No" to all four questions would constitute logical contradiction, so we can toss that option out.

To answer "Yes" to all four questions would imply that there is no such thing as one truth for all of humanity, but rather, the left hand is the inner truth for some of us, while the right hand is the inner truth for the remainder of us, and all of that would further suggest that each of us has a first philosophical priority, which is to ascertain one's own inner truth, irrespective of what anyone else's inner truth might be. I answer "Yes" to all four questions.

One might also answer "No, Yes, Yes, No," which would imply that the left hand is the only truth, and that the right hand is always a lie, for everyone, everywhere, endlessly.

Finally, one might answer "Yes, No, No, Yes," which would imply that the right hand is the only truth, and that the left hand is always a lie, for everyone, everywhere, endlessly.

For completeness I'll note that "Yes, Yes, No, No" would entail logical contradiction with respect to #3 and #4, whereas "No, No, Yes, Yes" would entail logical contradiction with respect to #1 and #2.

So what's your conclusion? Is the left hand the one truth? Is the right hand the one truth? Or is there no such thing as one truth for all? As noted, I choose the last of those options, and I challenge each person to ascertain one's own inner truth. And once you've ascertained it, live by it. As was taught in Delphi, "Know thyself," and as Shakespeare's Polonius counseled his son Laertes, "To thine own self be true."

*

Liu

  • *
  • 813
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2020, 07:06:35 pm »
Late to the party, but

Quote
There is supposedly a trajectory known as the RHP, which could be summarized as seeking to stop being a singularity and start being a zero so infinity can be experienced and enabled, a state of being I'll call "dissolution into the All."
Considering that we don't find many RHPers who actually want that and that we find some LHPers who might want that, I agree with the conclusion that this is not the best definition for the RHP.

Examples of LHPers who might seek dissolution:
- The original Hindu-LHPers. At least to that degree that also the Hindi-RHPers wanted something like that, and probably more since LHPers, on average, seem to be more serious about actually pursuing spirituality instead of just faking it for an image.
Just, I don't know whether dissolution is actually what they mean with their "becoming Shiva/Vishnu/whoever". Probably, as Mindmaster already said, depends on the sect whether they mean that or whether they rather mean realizing that one was that deity all along, and then either existing on as that deity or continuing their life with that altered perception.
- Gnostics. Just read Liber Azerate and tell me they don't sound like they are in love with the great nothingness. Still, that can all be quite metaphorical.


1) The RHP limits itself to social acceptable practices. (Mass, Prayer, etc.) If occultism is explored it is explored only in the manner that is the most friendly to this worldview. (For example, using names of angels and the names of God to work white magick.) It would still be pretty taboo to approach the occult subjects, but if it was done in the way that is mindful to the belief system it's generally accepted. (There are plenty of schools of Christian mystics doing exactly this... etc)

2) The "psycho-spiritual view" is that there is a mind, body, and soul and that they separate things that interact. Most of these religions will hold a view that "mind and body" are inferior pieces of the puzzle as well, since they "die" with the flesh.

3) There is a cosmic boogeyman that enforces the dogma of the religion. Whether it be karma, sin, or a "threefold law" that is the impetus for triggering the ire of the sky daddy/mommy/etc.

That doesn't include a state of "oneness" for the most part as you can see especially due to the complexity of addressing that issue on point #2. In most cases, that view propagated by smaller cloistered groups of monks associated with the main religion -- not the lay people themselves. (as you've noted) So, "on the record", these concepts are generally not part of the theological understanding of these religions. (But, small sects within the overall religion will have these ideas.)
This much rather sounds like a good definition of the RHP. Well, not sure about 2), and I would deem 1) more important than 3).

I'm not sure I buy it, however. Sure, there are a lot of RHP folks who let others think for them, and there are a lot of LHP folks who think for themselves. But I could do RHP without ever referencing the New Testament, the Quran, or the Tanakh. I could convince myself, through my own, original thought processes, that we live in a moral, caring universe, and therefore collectivism, legalism, and copycatting make sense. I would be an RH practitioner who thinks for himself.

I could also do LHP without ever doing anything EXCEPT reference The Satanic Bible. I could thump that bible ten times a day. Taking LaVey as my guru, I could offer my mind to him and let him fashion it in his image. I could obediently take on board, untested, the idea that we live in an amoral, uncaring universe, and therefore egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity make sense. I would be an LH practitioner who lets others think for me.
Which is why the "thinking for yourself" aspect is so crucial. There's a reason why a lot of Satanists consider contemporary LaVeyans unsatanic ;) And it's only in one's best interest to think for oneself, so very much in line with egoism.

1. Can collectivism, legalism, and copycatting be embraced without self-deceit?
2. Can self-deceit enable collectivism, legalism, and copycatting?
3. Can egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity be embraced without self-deceit?
4. Can self-deceit enable egoism, antinomianism, and eccentricity?
Good summary. I'd say "perhaps, yes, yes, yes".
Not entirely sure whether the collectivism vs. egoism dichotomy fits into this, though, as both these terms have more than one meaning.