A Spirituality of Liberation:
It's About Freedom!
July 19, 2003, amended April 27, 2007
In this evolving article, I learn that this liberation is not 'merely' a rebellion, but a reclaiming of power which had been ours but which was taken from us in the crushing forces of monotheism. Tonight, Julia and I have spent a very enjoyable time watching The Pirates Of The Caribbean. Is it odd a movie should reveal an answer to a question I've had recently?
''The Black Pearl is about FREEDOM,'' the pirate Jack Sparrow tells his mate, as he dreams of getting his ship back from those who stole it. And so it is. Piracy becomes a metaphor for an attitude towards life. Johnny Depp is quite sexy as the dark and princely Captain. Yes, he is a representation of the Dark Prince, a noble one who gives his efforts towards rescuing a fair maiden, and at one point, he even gets to wear a crown.
I recommend this movie highly. Besides it being heroically comic good fun, there is more than one metaphor going on within it. And don't forget the hot and sexy characters played by Depp, Bloom and Knightly. Hmmm, 'Deep Nightly Bloom?' 'Deep Knightly Bloom'?, as in the joy of chivalry? Nevermind. Back to this essay's subject.
I'd been wavering in knowing what the definition of LEFT HAND PATH was. Does my current philosophical and spiritual thought fit this? One Satanic writer opines that LHP is about BEING, while RHP is about BECOMING. As the concept of Xeper fits 'becoming', I wasn't sure if I was mis-representing myself to claim this going my own way through the thick spiritual jungle with a hacksaw as being of any sort of direction. 'As the spirit moves' is pretty much the gist of it. However I am the resident spirit who is determining the path of moving.
And therein lies all the difference. Jack Sparrow could have just as well been telling his mate, ''The BLACK FLAME is about FREEDOM.''
Roger Whitaker clarifies these concepts:
''The distinction between the RHP and the LHP is one of the most misunderstood dichotomies I have personally encountered. The pagan community misunderstands it, most contemporary Satanists misunderstand it, certainly mainstream religion hasn't got a clue. So, let me fill you in. The true distinction between the LHP and the RHP is one of intention: The LHP seeks a separation from God or nature for the purpose of self deification and the inherent personal responsibilities that implies. The RHP seeks to merge with God, to join the natural forces, to be with god and to allow the doctines of that god determine the degree and form of self responsibility.'' As Jack was saying, ''It's about FREEDOM!''
It's about piloting the ship of one's own life. Yes, it's a heavy responsibility, but the freedom is exhilarating. It encompasses both the states of 'being' and 'becoming', as these two are just part of the cycle that revolves.
There is joy in just BEING, knowing the present reality of one's consciousness. I have felt a rare magic at times. From a child on, these moments come to me. I may be in the middle of something quite insubstantial, like sitting on the 'pot', just thinking away as I do all day, when the thought comes to me, ''I'm ALIVE!'' It means, ''Wow! I'm a conscious being!'', and brings amazing joy at this realization. If like me, you've felt this feeling, you're not likely to do anything to numb that conscienceness, such as use drugs, drink alcohol to excess, or give the power of your will away to an external identity.
Having observed that, it's natural to next observe ''that the psychecentric consciousness can evolve towards its own divinity through deliberate exercise of the intelligence and Will, a process of becoming or coming into being''.
There you have it, the full wheel of 'being' and 'becoming'.
(from a discussion on one of my groups:) An Addition to 'It's About Freedom
September 18, 2003Post someone else made:
"Many people I have talked to about it say that RHP is good/white magick and LHP is bad /dark or black magick."The response I made to it:
"This definition is borrowing the ethics of the opposing side. Most LHPers don't view things in terms of 'good and evil'. It's more like 'desirable' and 'undesirable' results of actions.It can be very much in our selfish interests to want the best for our friends and family, as these are the people we care about.
If we love someone, we draw them into ourselves and they become a part of us.
But no one commands that love from us, it flows freely, and we don't give it to everyone, which is a RHP thing. But this doesn't mean we go around hating people. Hating is such a waste of energy, usually. It's more like an objective indifference until such person proves himself."
Conclusion:
As Jack and I have been saying, ''It's about FREEDOM!''
Another Addition to 'It's About Freedom
February 18, 2005Someone wrote to a LHP forum complaining of the exclusionary practices of one particular pagan group, " The ADF and I don't get along anymore due to their opinion of the Left Hand Path."
I went to the URL he gave, (http://www.adf.org/about/bylaws.html#Article21), and found that's not all they exclude!
"Membership within the Mother Grove, the clergy, and other such positions of responsibility and trust as the Mother Grove may determine, shall be granted only to practicing Neopagans who are not simultaneously practicing a creed inimical to Neopagan Druidism. As used herein, "inimical creeds" shall include varieties of conservative monotheism, atheism, demonism, racialism, or other such faiths, as shall be determined by the Mother Grove... I replied:
I think, by contrast, of how inclusive we of LHP path are. I'm sure there aren't any 'conservative' monotheists, but there's likely a few among our quarters who focus on just one diety. There are certainly atheists, those who have an agnostic view of the existence of deities, or a Platonic view of deities as "first-forms." Demonists, we've got demonists! And we've even got those of us with a version of 'the Lord and Lady'. (EX, Nuit, the Mother of the Gods, and her son SET.)I went to that link he gave on the list, and found it amusing that of all the Egyptian deities, they will specifically ask you to leave if you invoke Amun-Ra. They didn't say SET, the God of (Necessary) Chaos, they said Amun-Ra! I can't even figure this out, as Ahkenaton, who brought the first form of monotheism, called 'the supreme God' the 'Aten'. While devotion for Amun-Ra "approached monotheism" it never was completely monotheistic.
Why are we inclusive and they exclusive? I think because at the heart of all our explorations into spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical and magical matters, we are never dogmatic. We are always working with what we figure to be our best theory at the time. Those of us who say Deity has consciousness can be willing to admit the possibility that these entities live and are created in our psyche. Those of us who are more agnostic are willing to admit that they don't know everything and could be wrong. So we have a dynamic harmony of free inquiry.
By the focus on the Self that is the hallmark of LHP, we therefore have liberty.
Another Addition to 'It's About Freedom
May 17, 2005This weekend, we watched Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom & Eva Green. Bloom as Balian begins as a blacksmith who later becomes a leader. He is drawn by necessity into Jeruselem. But he does not share the religious fervor of those around him. He simply has as his life's theme, "What man is a man who does not make the world better?"
Eventually, the bloodthirsty extremists gain power, and war breaks out. Then it's the hoards killing each other, each saying it's "God's Will". How many wretched things have been done in the name of [insert God's name here] will? See, we of the LHP can't blame our sh*t on 'god'. It's our Will, it's our choice, our responsibility. The might of SET might be within us, but it's WE who determine how we use it.
Two Hands On The Wheel?
What do I mean by THAT?
Maybe it means I want all possible means of control to steer that wheel,
left hand at '10:00' and right hand at '2:00'.
"Two hands have I, but my strength is in the 'left'"
Another Addition to 'It's About Freedom
September 25, 2005
"Freedom, liberation, this must be the aim of man. To become free, to be liberated from slavery: this is what a man ought to strive for when he becomes even a little conscious of his position. There is nothing else for him, and nothing else is possible so long as he remains a slave both inwardly and outwardly. But he cannot cease to be a slave outwardly while he remains a slave inwardly. Therefore in order to become free, man must gain inner freedom. The first reason for man's inner slavery is his ignorance, and above all, his ignorance of himself. Without self-knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he wll always remain a slave, and the plaything of the forces acting upon him.
This is why in all ancient teachings the first demand at the beginning of the way to liberation was: 'Know thyself.'"
---In Search of the Miraculous, The Teachings of G.I.Gurdjieff by P.D. Ouspensky, page 104
Another Addition to 'It's About Freedom: Reclaiming What Had Been our Birthright
April 27, 2007(This is an adaptation of posts made to various discussion lists...)
One of the most startling things learned in studying antiquity is that 'Left Hand Path' is not a 'modern' thing. After 2000+ years of monotheism have robbed people of their divine capacities, it seems an act of rebellion to take this back. Indeed many on the LHP never dig deep enough to realize what has been stolen away from us. And conversely, many of those persuing the Kemetic and Greek Reconstructionist paths do so with a crippled understanding. As I explained earlier to someone on an Egyptian/Greco list, who asked 'what is a 'working', as way of response to my telling about a little of my practices.To do a 'Working' requires different religio/magio concepts than what we're used to. In the later Roman times 'Religion' and 'Magic' endured a severance, in which the two were thought to be completely separate. In 'religion' the petitioner begs the gods, whereas in 'magic', the active magician makes demands, acts upon his will to create supernatural change, change that would not have otherwise occured through mundane means.
However actually, if you read Robert K. Ritner's book _The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice_, he explains that in Egyptian times this division was not so. The Priests were as we understand today 'Magicians'. In the spells that still survive, they assumed the role of a God to bring about what they willed. They, as a God, entered the realm of the Gods.
Also, in Jan Assmann's _Religion and Cultural Memory_, he says:
"What is crucial is that the priest encounters the gods not as a man, but in the role of a god. Iamblichus rightly insists "that the workings of the gods are not achieved by two different parties confronting one another (man and god), but that this kind of divine activity is brought about in agreement, unity and consent.... ...When the priest speaks, one god speaks to another and the words unfold their transformative, performative and 'presentificatory' power." (Page 133)
So then, one who does a 'working' enters 'the realm of creation' to work his will. It takes a different sort of consciousness than that of the mundane, or even of ritual, or of simple adoration for the God, but a form of 'hyper awareness' in which that which is divine within us comes forth.
This might be a radical concept for the Kemeticist and Greek Reconstructionist, even though the scholars clearly show those addressing the Gods in those days assumed just such power.
Blessed we are, with knowledge of both hands to have a fully functioning religious/magical process.
A Clarification
May 6, 2007I don't want to mislead anyone. There are crucial differences between 'Right Hand Path' and 'Left Hand Path'. Some like to de-emphasize the differences, but it isn't too long before they become clear.
. "If you don't want society to run amok, then become Christian, etc." This is fearmongering at its worst (and sad to say, its usual).Perhaps the division of thought is better understood when the left hand path is seen to be that of the magician, and that of right hand path that of religion. Bob Brier in _Ancient Egyptian Magic__ explains:
"In magic there is an immediacy lacking in religion. When the magician says an incantation, it is _he_ who brings about the desired effect: whereas, when a priest prays for something, it is not he, but a deity who brings about the effect. In magic the magician is the agent: in religion the priest is only the intermediary between the mundane world and the supernatural agent. This leads to a second difference between magic and religion. In religious ritual, such as prayer, there is often an ultimate goal in sight, but the goal is not essential. It is possible to worship a god just for the sake of worshipping the god. The worshipper does not have to be asking for something. In magic this is not possible. A magician never recites a spell for its own sake - magic is never an end in itself, it is always a means to an end. Magic is a direct attempt by the practioner to control supernatural forces to achieve a specific goal. (Page 11)
Although, as it's been pointed out, initiatory work (often called 'left hand path') and religion (often called 'right hand path') are not mutually exclusive. One is inner oriented and the other is outer oriented. Perhaps most people are 'ambidexterous', but will favor a 'hand'. Yes, I favor the self directed initiatory approach. But I need community, as well. And sometimes I contemplate Set simply for the sake of contemplating him. (And rarely, though sometimes, I have had experiences of Set as 'wholly other', a rather alien eternal consciousness.) While Setians do not use the word 'belief', but stress instead experience, there is still a common language within that community that gives it cohesivity. (We all strive towards Xeper, even though we may approach it in varying ways.)
What is important to understand for those primarily 'left handed' is the very SELF DIRECTED nature of our individual initiationary process. With our Will pointed to Xeper, we seek out those sources we can learn from. I find that when I do so, the sources of inspiration and learning are VAST. But it is always my will that I am serving. If I am striving to be an example of Ma'at (justice, balance and beauty), it is my discernment that determines just what fulfills those ideals. I go to that which is divine within _me_ to learn that.
And I do strive to be an example of Ma'at. I am not of the 'modern' opinion that freedom equals license to do 'whatever I want', without thought to ethics or philosophy regarding what makes a life well lived. After all, it is easy to oppose a religious/initiatory system that would exist without ethics as its backbone. Perhaps, as Dr. Stephen Edred Flowers suggests, that was just the intent of monotheistic 'advertising'
Go to Archive - May 2003 to April 2004
Go to Archive - May 2004 to April 2005
Go to Archive - May 2005 to April 2006
Go to Archive - May 2006 to April 2007
Go to Archive - May 2007 to April 2008
Go Back to INDEX of Markings Of My Path
© JAL:
