m1thr0s
05-10-2007, 06:33 PM
In defining the Left Hand Path to begin with we rejected the more recent Western definition of the term as superficial and predjudicial and adopted instead the much older Eastern definition, rooted in the tantric terms dakshinachara and vamachara, or right-hand-path & left-hand-path, respectively. Even the Eastern definition becomes entangled in internal contradictions if we attempt the most literal possible accounting of these terms, so that even from this stronger starting point we are forced to summarize their generalized intent and base our (hopefully) more reliable definition upon this summary.
The debate over an exacting definition of the terms left-hand-path and right-hand-path has been going on for years and it is possible that it will never be satisfactorily resolved. We are using it on these forums to indicate two fundamentally different approaches to "occult" knowledge itself, which I take to be the same as "gnosis". On the one side we have have an approach that is content to embrace and even rely upon "belief" or "faith" in some guiding higher force or power as embodied in some form or another of "traditional" teachings. On the other we have an approach that is more intrinsically scientific in nature and generally rejects "belief" or "faith" as unreliable and prefers instead to rely more upon first-hand observation, demonstrable proofs and experimental method.
Alchemy has been deemed to be more indicative of the latter of these two approaches insofar as we might generalize the matter, but since the terms we are using are generalized terms to begin with, it is appropriate in that context to link Alchemy to the Left-Hand-Path. Viewing Alchemy as the forerunner of Modern Science, from which nearly all of its underscoring assumptions derive, it is a relatively easy task to imagine that between Alchemy and Religion (for instance), Alchemy would clearly be the more skeptical and results-oriented approach to higher knowledge itself.
None of this necessarily says anything of Alchemy as a spiritual path as understood and practised by individuals themselves. It is perfectly possible to be an Alchemist and still divorce oneself from the so-called Left-Hand-Path, perhaps viewing alchemical postulates and principles themselves as a kind of doctrine as "believable" as anything else offered anywhere within the confines of religion. While this may be true on a philosophical level, it is not especially defensible when the matter turns to methodology, and it is this difference of methodology that is of special interest to us here in these immediate discussion forums.
So it suits our purposes here to class Alchemy as a Left-Hand-Path methodology, which I might have simply said to begin with, but I wanted to at least try to explain why that might be and not just toss it out there on a kind of take-it-or-leave-it basis. I have never really been all that comfortable with either of these terms to begin with since we are dealing in a very generalized sort of language that easily polarizes people to no particular avail. But there are certain practical considerations that get involved as well and these don't seem to be vanishing any time soon, so I have finally relented to use these terms despite their volatile natures.
m1thr0s
The debate over an exacting definition of the terms left-hand-path and right-hand-path has been going on for years and it is possible that it will never be satisfactorily resolved. We are using it on these forums to indicate two fundamentally different approaches to "occult" knowledge itself, which I take to be the same as "gnosis". On the one side we have have an approach that is content to embrace and even rely upon "belief" or "faith" in some guiding higher force or power as embodied in some form or another of "traditional" teachings. On the other we have an approach that is more intrinsically scientific in nature and generally rejects "belief" or "faith" as unreliable and prefers instead to rely more upon first-hand observation, demonstrable proofs and experimental method.
Alchemy has been deemed to be more indicative of the latter of these two approaches insofar as we might generalize the matter, but since the terms we are using are generalized terms to begin with, it is appropriate in that context to link Alchemy to the Left-Hand-Path. Viewing Alchemy as the forerunner of Modern Science, from which nearly all of its underscoring assumptions derive, it is a relatively easy task to imagine that between Alchemy and Religion (for instance), Alchemy would clearly be the more skeptical and results-oriented approach to higher knowledge itself.
None of this necessarily says anything of Alchemy as a spiritual path as understood and practised by individuals themselves. It is perfectly possible to be an Alchemist and still divorce oneself from the so-called Left-Hand-Path, perhaps viewing alchemical postulates and principles themselves as a kind of doctrine as "believable" as anything else offered anywhere within the confines of religion. While this may be true on a philosophical level, it is not especially defensible when the matter turns to methodology, and it is this difference of methodology that is of special interest to us here in these immediate discussion forums.
So it suits our purposes here to class Alchemy as a Left-Hand-Path methodology, which I might have simply said to begin with, but I wanted to at least try to explain why that might be and not just toss it out there on a kind of take-it-or-leave-it basis. I have never really been all that comfortable with either of these terms to begin with since we are dealing in a very generalized sort of language that easily polarizes people to no particular avail. But there are certain practical considerations that get involved as well and these don't seem to be vanishing any time soon, so I have finally relented to use these terms despite their volatile natures.
m1thr0s