Is the RHP a myth?

  • 68 Replies
  • 2763 Views
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2020, 12:31:45 am »
I realized belatedly that I should have reversed the directionality of the spectrum so as to match the left hand versus right hand expectations. I also realized I could mirror left to right by proposing something I never dreamed of, namely, dissolving ALL into ego, which is what I think is meant by the more radical proponents of apotheosis. See attached.

ALL is the universe, the ultimate macrocosm. The RHP will tend to perceive ALL as pantheistic. The LHP will tend to view ALL as I-theistic but only at the supreme level of attainment, for example the Diabolicon's Red Magus.
I guess I should ask you, how are you using the word 'ego' here?

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #61 on: February 17, 2020, 11:01:56 am »
Ego is the self, all of the self, inclusive of everything belonging to the self, exclusive of nothing belonging thereto. I'm not using the word in the Freudian sense, whereby ego, id, and superego are separate components.

Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2020, 12:08:41 am »
Ego is the self, all of the self, inclusive of everything belonging to the self, exclusive of nothing belonging thereto. I'm not using the word in the Freudian sense, whereby ego, id, and superego are separate components.
:rolleyes: I'm not trying to be a ballbuster, but how are you using the word 'self'? Then I can address this thread properly.

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2020, 01:56:15 pm »
A self is anything that can formulate, grasp, and care about the concepts "I" and "me" with respect to itself, regardless of linguistic capability.

Self in the Left Hand sense is all selves, hence the biological self (body and mind) plus any and all alternate, lower, or higher plane selves, many or all of which survive death.

Self in the Right Hand sense is the biological self (body and mind) plus some sort of connection to the ALL. The connection to the ALL is the soul and survives death, either with or without the biological mind.

Self and ego are interchangeable for me. I only used the word "ego" because of the phrase, "dissolution of the ego."

*

Liu

  • *
  • 813
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2020, 05:50:28 pm »
A self is anything that can formulate, grasp, and care about the concepts "I" and "me" with respect to itself, regardless of linguistic capability.
So basically, an awareness plus a higher mind, which combined cause self-awareness. That'd mean, an adult dolphin or crow likely has a self, a newborn human doesn't.

I would normally use the term self in either of the two following meanings:
- Awareness/subjectivity per se, without necessarily any content within that awareness. That's the only part that I'd believe is immortal even without further work.
- The core of the psyche/personality, those parts of the content of an awareness and of the corresponding subconscious that one would want to retain when self-deifying.

Quote
Self in the Left Hand sense is all selves, hence the biological self (body and mind) plus any and all alternate, lower, or higher plane selves, many or all of which survive death.

Self in the Right Hand sense is the biological self (body and mind) plus some sort of connection to the ALL. The connection to the ALL is the soul and survives death, either with or without the biological mind.
Hm, I don't think that represents all LHP and RHP metaphysics. Why would the two paths need to differ in their metaphysics anyway?

Quote
Self and ego are interchangeable for me. I only used the word "ego" because of the phrase, "dissolution of the ego."
I encountered the phrase "dissolution of the ego" and similar also in contexts that clearly referred to overcoming delusions caused by one's ego (in the Freudian sense) for the purpose of spiritual self-development and strengthening of the self.

And I'm still not sure whether I understand your definition of "all" correctly.

*

crossfire

  • ***
  • 148
  • Mercuræn Luciferian Buddhist ☿
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #65 on: February 29, 2020, 04:08:02 am »
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.

That's not Buddhism as taught by the Buddha.  (I can provide sutta references if requested.)  I don't think it describes the Buddhism as embraced by former Priestess of Set Zeena Schreck, either.   
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 04:45:18 am by crossfire »
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

*

Hapu

  • *
  • 472
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #66 on: February 29, 2020, 10:42:28 am »
I'm interested to read your sutta references, crossfire.

*

crossfire

  • ***
  • 148
  • Mercuræn Luciferian Buddhist ☿
    • View Profile
Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #67 on: February 29, 2020, 11:40:06 am »
I'm interested to read your sutta references, crossfire.

This is just a quick refution of what was posted in the OP.  I can go deeper if requested.
First of all, Buddha's definition of "The All"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Quote
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
So basically, any description of The All is limited by the contents of subjective minds.

Regarding rebirth and no-rebirth:  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.065.niza.html

Quote
At one time, the Venerable Sāriputta was dwelling near the small village of Nālaka in Magadha. And then, there where Venerable Sāriputta was, there Sāmaṇḍakāni, the wanderer, approached. Having approached, he exchanged greetings with the Venerable Sāriputta. Having exchanged greetings, and courteous talk having passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, Sāmaṇḍakāni, the wanderer, said this to Venerable Sāriputta:

"Now, what, friend Sāriputta, is the pleasant, and what is the painful?"

"Rebirth, friend, is painful; non-rebirth is pleasant. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected: cold and heat, hunger and thirst, excrement and urine, contact with fire, contact with punishment, contact with weapons, and anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected.

"When, friend, there is no rebirth, this pleasantness is to be expected: neither cold nor heat, neither hunger nor thirst, neither excrement nor urine, neither contact with fire, nor contact with punishment, nor contact with weapons, and no anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. When, friend, there is no rebirth, this pleasantness is to be expected."
So, Rebirth is associated with the painfulness of "The All," whereas no rebirth is separating from the painfulness of "The All."
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."
~Carl Jung

Re: Is the RHP a myth?
« Reply #68 on: February 29, 2020, 01:39:11 pm »
"dissolving ALL into ego, which is what I think is meant by the more radical proponents of apotheosis. See attached."

"ALL is the universe, the ultimate macrocosm. The RHP will tend to perceive ALL as pantheistic. The LHP will tend to view ALL as I-theistic but only at the supreme level of attainment, for example the Diabolicon's Red Magus."

"Ego is the self, all of the self, inclusive of everything belonging to the self, exclusive of nothing belonging thereto. I'm not using the word in the Freudian sense, whereby ego, id, and superego are separate components."

So, dissolving All (the universe/macrocosm) into the Ego (self/Self) . . . wouldn't that be the other way around? Dissolving the Ego/Self into the All (universe/macrocosm). And by universe, I believe you are referring to the objective universe and not your subjective universes, or I would hope not anyone else's subjective universes?

I see this as strictly a RHP philosophy/practice, and not a western left hand path one, which seeks to divorce the Self from the objective universe in order to strengthen one's isolate consciousness.