Emancipation Through Orthodoxy

[Smaragd]

Left Hand Path modus operandi often seems to have its initial starting points in breaking free from orthodoxy and unnecessary limitations. In the attempt of uniting the hands, how do you see orthodoxy, limitations, structure etc. can be used to serve the LHP ethos of emancipation strictly within the context of spiritual striving?

[Kavi]

Left Hand Path modus operandi often seems to have its initial starting points in breaking free from orthodoxy and unnecessary limitations. In the attempt of uniting the hands, how do you see orthodoxy, limitations, structure etc. can be used to serve the LHP ethos of emancipation strictly within the context of spiritual striving?

I think sometimes why such distinction has been made in the first place?
In Islamic context I have read that (esoteric) Sufi brotherhoods tended to still vow for sharia.

Even in more mundane striving I really need limitations and structure and order - unluckily for me society has turned towards more rhizomatic network and digitally shattered world which doesn't provide this needed help to stand on my own feet.

Here I would argue that some form of polar change occurs - Left Hand Path person must now more or less look for limitations and structure in order to find towards the emancipation.
At least I feel that total freedom becomes the very same prison one tries to escape from. But this seems like arguing for stricter spiritual experiences like various religious movements have tried to argue for?

My main point is not that. RHP/LHP idea is like constant rope-dancing which might recall Aristotelian virtue of "moderation" or centrism but I don't see it like that.
It's more multifaceted than I can present it with words.

[Smaragd]

Left Hand Path modus operandi often seems to have its initial starting points in breaking free from orthodoxy and unnecessary limitations. In the attempt of uniting the hands, how do you see orthodoxy, limitations, structure etc. can be used to serve the LHP ethos of emancipation strictly within the context of spiritual striving?

I think sometimes why such distinction has been made in the first place?

Perhaps it is a necessary distinction in a certain phase where one must gain a clear view of a dead form that rules over one's life. But the distinction, a dividing cut, should already be fundamentally directed by buddhi, like reason should be used only to find a greater harmony between the pieces. Otherwise distinctions become violently dualistic. (Not to forget how the divisive kama manas used for such tools as sarcasm and other jesterly ways can be also worked with to gain harmony.)

Even in more mundane striving I really need limitations and structure and order - unluckily for me society has turned towards more rhizomatic network and digitally shattered world which doesn't provide this needed help to stand on my own feet.

This is my experience also. I need meaningful structures for myself to serve in order to lift a finger for any cause. There have been many more or less self-serving paths offered for me in life, but they have only inspired me in mortification and dying from the world. The only kind of structure that is supportive enough is the kind which has consciously found its base on the deepest possible ground, and realistically strives towards this base.

Thus emancipation can be experienced in the start of defining this base (questioning the orthodoxy), and further on keeping at striving towards the base especially on the depth axis (emancipation from the individual limitations through limitating demands). This paradox speaks of an interesting archetypal idea of the narrow gate, which leads to a more vast or lofty space. The mother's womb and the need to leave it can be seen as a clear example of this in the nature. This was also the idea in Nefastos' and Astraya's commentary on The Lord of the Rings, where Shire was seen as a womb-like place which on the other hand represented "The Shadow of the Past" (the name of the second chapter of the book), which must be overcome and step out of to the path full of dangers in order to allow oneself to grow.

Here I would argue that some form of polar change occurs - Left Hand Path person must now more or less look for limitations and structure in order to find towards the emancipation.
At least I feel that total freedom becomes the very same prison one tries to escape from.

I agree, although to nitpick just a bit, I think it would not have to be a total polar change, but rather finding a more nuanced balance between the two polar opposites.

But this seems like arguing for stricter spiritual experiences like various religious movements have tried to argue for?

If my above nitpickery is allowed, could it in that case instead mean demanding more fine or deeply opening sights in to the world of spirit, rather than demanding any specific experiences? If this doesn't quite answer the question, perhaps we could take a concrete example on the table, starting from an example of a religious movement arguing for stricter spiritual experiences.

[Kavi]

I think nitpicking here is fine. Actually it would just make more sense and was actually something I had in my mind.