The term Left hand path in its modern usage,
as Wikipedia informs us, derives from the fact that:
“Throughout history, many cultures have regarded
the left hand and left-handedness as evil. This
tendency can be seen in the dual meaning of the
word left, in the etymology of words such as sinister,
which in Latin means both left and unlucky. Consequently,
the left hand has often been used as a symbol for
the rejection of traditional religion. The word
right as used with hand in the Old Testament is
generally the Hebrew word yamin meaning stronger,
more dextrous. The word for left is smowl meaning
dark. God gives and creates with his right hand,
it is his wonderful ability to do all things. With
his left hand he punishes. Much of this has been
contributed by the practice in many cultures of
using the left hand to cleanse oneself, thus making
the hand "unclean".”
and
“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.” (1)
While this may be true for popular usage, it
does little to clarify the matter; as discussed
elsewhere*, political and social identities have
become central to much of the so-called Pagan
revivals which, though having their origin in
the Victorian occult revival of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries have shunned much of
the practical side of magic in favor of “religion”
in an attempt to, among other things, gain some
measure of societal acceptance. Consequently there
is, as has been said, more magic in Christian
Science than most flavors of Wicca.
It is also an odd development, in terms of the
terminology, as “Left-hand Path religion”
is a contradiction in terms(2) . In fact, “Left-hand
Path religion” is mostly used by “Satanists”
who, while supposedly an “anti-religion”
is in most cases a simple inversion of Christianity
and other religions.(3) Unfortunately, the very
word religion has become distorted in its usage,
particularly in the U.S., an occurrence that comes
about because religions are afforded special treatment,
such as tax exemption as well as the fact that
one can dress up the most repulsive ideas as a
religion and claim exemption from social limits
on their expression. The Left-hand path is, in
some sense iconoclastic, but the case could be
made that this popular usage of the term and has
its roots in other contexts which are no longer
applicable.
The writer Francis King(4) has made the point
that the term Left hand in a spiritual (as opposed
to religious) context, originally comes from Indian
Tantra where the rites are practiced either as
‘Right-hand”, i.e. where the female
partner sits to the right of the male and the
rituals are practiced symbolically and the “Left-handed”
Tantra (the Vama-Marg) performs the rites, including
the eating of forbidden foods etc., and the female
partner sits (at the beginning of the ritual)
to the Left of her partner. In this usage, both
practices are aimed at the spiritual advancement
of the practitioners and the Vama-Marg is considered
a faster but riskier method. This echoes in some
ways the arguments between advocates of meditation
and similar practices vs. those who use psychedelic
drugs for comparable reasons. It is interesting
to note the writers mention of “self-proclaimed”
practitioners of the Left-hand path (which implies
Satanists, though I would differ with this characterization)
as if those who practice navel gazing meditation
are some how, I suppose, bathed in light from
the heavens in deference to their sacrifice and
endurance. Which is a good thing too, since practically
none of them ever seems to actually achieve anything,
unless one counts uninformed screeds that sound
like the writing of a modern-day Irenaeus, the
2nd century apologist.
There is also the problem of evil, such that
existential evil is a fallacy which arises largely
from human narcissism. The historian of Witchcraft,
Elliot Rose point out:
... There can be no absolute evil at all; or certainly
no consistent will to absolute evil. Evil, simply
as such, cannot be pursued as an end; if Satan
wants to encourage some particular sin, he will
have to make a truce with some particular virtue.
Satan himself cannot be absolutely evil, and remain
effective. To suppose him formidable is to suppose
him strong, intelligent, determined; and that
is better than to be week, foolish, and inconstant.
What is better is relatively good, and without
the assistance of relative good, Satan would be
powerless.
[...] That which is good in itself does not cease
to be good in itself because it is used for evil
purposes; beauty is still beauty, though a snare;
skill remains skill though the handmaid of crime;
knowledge is still knowledge though twisted to
support a lie; and they remain, in themselves,
better than ugliness, ineptitude, or ignorance.
Even moral goodness so perverted remains intrinsically
good. Courage is still admirable though a burglar
needs to possess it; and the patience required
to pick a lock is a virtue though in the man who
so misuses it is found in conjunction with avarice,
which is a sin. The commendable qualities of Satan,
if any, are to be commended; and if he has none,
he is not to be feared.
A quite random study of the imaginative literature
on moral themes will make this clear. It is a
familiar problem that the bad characters in books
are more convincing than the good; but it is a
much worse problem to draw the portrait of a convincing
and really horrible devil. In fact, it cannot
be done. Consider how Milton was thwarted in Paradise
Lost; to make Satan a possible character on the
epic scale, he had to make him heroic; show him
wholly evil, and he would be merely laughable,
a squalor self-fettered in slime, and there would
be no Adversary and no plot. Critics have been
known to assert, on this ground, that Milton really
sympathized with his Satan. But how otherwise
could he possibly have been represented, in a
work of serious moral purpose? The Middle Ages,
by and large, had preferred to let their Devil
exemplify a wide range of vices; and in consequence
he became for them a mere grotesque. A sickly
misshapen goblin out of Heironymous Bosch, vicious
but impotent, or a grand operatic Prometheus;
these are, more or less, the alternatives.
-- Elliot Rose, A Razor for a Goat
Rose’s argument is compelling; the concept
of existential or natural, evil is unsupportable
when applied to the world. We can, then, consider
the nature of the “sinister” in relation
to the spiritual metaphors applicable to the so-called
Left-hand path.
* See especially The
Triumph of the Moon by Ronald
Hutton for a even handed and thoughtful overview of so-called Neopagan Witchcraft or Wicca
1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Hand_Path
2.see On the Impossibility of the Devil, next section.
3. Ironically, this is the very same phenomena
that the Inquisition believed concerning Witchcraft
(reversal of Christian rites), an idea which has
been completely dismissed by historians as the
delusions of the witch finders. C.f. On the Impossibility
of the Devil
4. Tantra for Westerners, King, Shamballa
Go to part
2
|
